http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6432363.stm

SOTU 16 words proven true (again)

Clarice Feldman

Much of the Wilson/Plame fuss about "Bush lied" related to the 16 words in the State of the Union address which said that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. Never mind that this was based on British Intelligence that the Butler Commission found was sound, Wilson and his Dem-media friends insisted this was a false charge. The British claim related to the Congo, and we now have sound evidence that it was, in fact, very good intelligence, indeed.

An international network set up to illegally use uranium mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has reportedly been dismantled.

Scientific Research Minister Sylvanus Mushi said DRC's top nuclear official and a colleague were being questioned in connection with the case.

The official, Fortunat Lumu, and the colleague were arrested on Tuesday.

The move comes amid reports that a large quantity of uranium has gone missing in recent years in DRC.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/sotu_16_words_proven_true_agai.html

BTW, Iraq already had almost two tons of yellowcake at the time of the US invasion. Saddam was looking for more, around 1998-99, because his current stockpile was under IAEA seal in Tuwaitha.

A fact that one doesn't see reported much in the mainstream media.

Strange that in the BBC story the word Saddam does not appear once.

You have an interesting standard of proof for your claims.

How did you go from Niger to the Congo? Is this some type of bait and switch? And just keep forgetting the fact that our own CIA told Bush and Cheney to lose the language about the yellow cake because of it's unreliability.

Wow... So let's summarize the OP's apparent point here. Libby, who is convicted of lying a few times during the investigation into outing Valerie Plame, is vindicated because it turns out that uranium in DR Congo has been unaccounted for over the past few years. There is no mention of Iraq being involved in the DR Congo uranium. The original 16 words related to Niger, not Congo.

So Scooter is innocent of lying about who told who about Valerie Plame because there's some missing uranium in DR Congo, right? God Bless the American Conservative...

Wow... So let's summarize the OP's apparent point here. Libby, who is convicted of lying a few times during the investigation into outing Valerie Plame, is vindicated because it turns out that the uranium in DR Congo has been unaccounted for over the past few years. There is no mention of Iraq being involved in the DR Congo uranium. The original 16 words related to Niger, not Congo.

So Scooter is innocent of lying about who told who about Valerie Plame because there's some missing uranium in DR Congo, right? God Bless the American Conservative...
...does strange things to thought processes.

How did you go from Niger to the Congo? Is this some type of bait and switch? And just keep forgetting the fact that our own CIA told Bush and Cheney to lose the language about the yellow cake because of it's unreliability.


Apparently all African nations look the same, so that makes it true.

It never ceases to amaze me how delusional the neocons are behaving.

It's like little children trying to justify stealing a candy bar.

No wait, it's more like watching OJ Simpson trying to deny he murdered his ex-wife and Ron when his own blood was found at the scene.

Pathetic.

It never ceases to amaze me how delusional the neocons are behaving.

It's like little children trying to justify stealing a candy bar.

No wait, it's more like watching OJ Simpson trying to deny he murdered his ex-wife and Ron when his own blood was found at the scene.

Pathetic.

OJ is not guilty of killing his wife. :thumbsup:

OJ is not guilty of killing his wife. :thumbsup:


But Libby is guilty of lying and obstruction of justice...

One step closer to reality.

Oh, and if the 16 words in the SOTU were true, why did the White House have them removed from the transcript?

But Libby is guilty of lying and obstruction of justice...

One step closer to reality.

Oh, and if the 16 words in the SOTU were true, why did the White House have them removed from the transcript?

While it is true that a jury found Libby guilty, a jury also found OJ not guilty. Just goes to show the importance of the jury selection process.

Were the famous sixteen words removed from the transcript? If they were I couldn't tell you why. That seems absurd to me. The transcript is what he said or it's not the transcript. Anyway, if the words were removed, (was it prior the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation perhaps?) then maybe it's time that they were un-removed.

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

In particular he said that President Bush was lying when, in his 2003 State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate.

The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was "reasonable" (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day.


Yeah, the special prosecutors trolling mission snagged Libby on a process charge, but the bottom line is that Ol' Joe is the big liar in the situation, such was the finding of the Senate Intelligence committee report on the matter.

That committee also concluded that it was likely that Iraq was sniffing around Africa for yellowcake.

A former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, told Wilson that in June 1999, a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations." Mayaki, knowing how few commodities for export are produced by impoverished Niger, interpreted that to mean that Saddam was seeking uranium.

And this too

Another former government official told Wilson that Iran had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. That's the same year that Saddam forced the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq. Could the former official have meant Iraq rather than Iran? If someone were to try to connect those dots, what picture might emerge?

Schmidt adds that the Senate panel was alarmed to find that the CIA never "fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin."



Concerning the Niger forgeries

Yes, there were fake documents relating to Niger-Iraq sales. But no, those forgeries were not the evidence that convinced British intelligence that Saddam may have been shopping for "yellowcake" uranium. On the contrary, according to some intelligence sources, the forgery was planted in order to be discovered — as a ruse to discredit the story of a Niger-Iraq link, to persuade people there were no grounds for the charge. If that was the plan, it worked like a charm.

Clever, those folks responsible for that doozy have probably been rigorously recruited by the DNC for what they could pull in '08.

The CIA should have sent someone to Africa that knew what they were doing. But, I guess Valerie wasn't married to such a person. Which is too bad, because it could have saved Libby from having his life ruined.

The CIA should have sent someone to Africa that knew what they were doing. But, I guess Valerie wasn't married to such a person. Which is too bad, because it could have saved Libby from having his life ruined.

Or...he could have just told the truth?

Personal responsibilty is a biatch I know.

Or...he could have just told the truth?

Personal responsibilty is a biatch I know.

Really? Could you have just told the truth? What is the truth? Lots of folks in this case had problems with the truth, not because they are liars but because it wasn't exactly the kind of thing that burns itself into the memory.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030801499.html

Scooter Libby has just been convicted of four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for . . . what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife.

Think about that. Can you remember when you first heard the name Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame? Okay, so it is not a preoccupation of yours. But it was a preoccupation of many Washington journalists and government officials called to testify at the Libby trial, and their memories were all over the lot. Former presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer testified under oath that he had not told Post reporter Walter Pincus about Mrs. Wilson. Pincus testified under oath that Fleischer definitely had....

...He (Libby) was famously multitasking a large number of national security and domestic issues, receiving hundreds of pieces of information every day from dozens of sources. Yet special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald chose to make Libby's misstatements about the timing of the receipt of one piece of information -- Mrs. Wilson's identity -- the great white whale of his multimillion-dollar prosecutorial juggernaut

This investigation was the pursuit of a process crime. It wasn't the pursuit of getting to the truth. Fitzgerald already knew the truth when he began putting high ranking administration officials thru the ringer. The truth didn't have any indictment potential, so he went to the old standby, perjury. Spin perjury just right and you've got obstruction of justice.

Get enough people to answer the same questions over and over and you'll get someone to contradict something that was said.

I know what truth is...it is how I sleep at night.

For me knowing that I was honest is not a relativist position. It is part of my make-up...Honesty is the policy. There is this lesson from the Martha Stewart case...don't fark with the Feds. They hate being lied too.

A jury of his peers decided that he was a liar...the rule of law is another thing that I am ardently non-relativist about. He is guilty, because the people assigned to hear, disseminate and make conclusions based on the evidence found him guilty.

Simple.

He tells the truth...he doesn't go to jail.

Anyone that thinks otherwise is just an apologist...

God Bless the American Conservative...

U R right. Someone has to pay for everything!

Keep reading the thread, it's all very simple. Even a liberal could understand it. Well, maybe not, that's asking alot. Let's say that even my dog can understand it.

I know what truth is...it is how I sleep at night....

.....A jury of his peers decided that he was a liar...the rule of law is another thing that I am ardently non-relativist about. He is guilty, because the people assigned to hear, disseminate and make conclusions based on the evidence found him guilty.


Excellent Point! Too bad the Grudge in this case, Sorry, I mean the judge in this case didn't allow Libby's defense to give the jury the full story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030801499.html

Everyone agrees that Fitzgerald's perjury case against Libby hung on the testimony of NBC's Tim Russert. Libby said that he heard about Plame from Russert. Russert said he had never discussed it. The jury members who have spoken said they believed Russert.

And why should they not? Russert is a perfectly honest man who would not lie. He was undoubtedly giving his best recollection.

But he is not the pope. Given that so many journalists and administration figures were shown to have extremely fallible memories, is it possible that Russert's memory could have been faulty?

I have no idea. But we do know that Russert once denied calling up a Buffalo News reporter to complain about a story. Russert later apologized for the error when he was shown the evidence of a call he had genuinely and completely forgotten.

There is a second instance of Russert innocently misremembering. He stated under oath that he did not know that one may not be accompanied by a lawyer to a grand jury hearing. This fact, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the case, except that, as former prosecutor Victoria Toensing points out, the defense had tapes showing Russert saying on television three times that lawyers are barred from grand jury proceedings.

This demonstration of Russert's fallibility was never shown to the jury. The judge did not allow it. He was upset with the defense because it would not put Libby on the stand -- his perfect Fifth Amendment right -- after hinting in the opening statement that it might. He therefore denied the defense a straightforward demonstration of the fallibility of the witness whose testimony was most decisive.

I wonder if that story will make it into jurist Collin's book about the trial?

Sleep well tonite!

Wow... God Bless the American Conservative...

No self respecting conservative would be questioning the rule of law...

/have no idea who these people are, but they certainly are not...conservatives.

No self respecting conservative would be questioning the rule of law...

/have no idea who these people are, but they certainly are not...conservatives.

No self respecting conservative would sit back and allow a witch hunt to ruin a man's life because the Dems need an excuse to distance themselves from their war vote.

Rule of law? There are types of laws that were placed aside in order to bring an indictment against Libby in the first place.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/03/the_potemkin_prosecution_part_1.html

:cryin: :out:

Excellent Point! Too bad the Grudge in this case, Sorry, I mean the judge in this case didn't allow Libby's defense to give the jury the full story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030801499.html

Everyone agrees that Fitzgerald's perjury case against Libby hung on the testimony of NBC's Tim Russert. Libby said that he heard about Plame from Russert. Russert said he had never discussed it. The jury members who have spoken said they believed Russert.

And why should they not? Russert is a perfectly honest man who would not lie. He was undoubtedly giving his best recollection.

But he is not the pope. Given that so many journalists and administration figures were shown to have extremely fallible memories, is it possible that Russert's memory could have been faulty?

I have no idea. But we do know that Russert once denied calling up a Buffalo News reporter to complain about a story. Russert later apologized for the error when he was shown the evidence of a call he had genuinely and completely forgotten.

There is a second instance of Russert innocently misremembering. He stated under oath that he did not know that one may not be accompanied by a lawyer to a grand jury hearing. This fact, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the case, except that, as former prosecutor Victoria Toensing points out, the defense had tapes showing Russert saying on television three times that lawyers are barred from grand jury proceedings.

This demonstration of Russert's fallibility was never shown to the jury. The judge did not allow it. He was upset with the defense because it would not put Libby on the stand -- his perfect Fifth Amendment right -- after hinting in the opening statement that it might. He therefore denied the defense a straightforward demonstration of the fallibility of the witness whose testimony was most decisive.

I wonder if that story will make it into jurist Collin's book about the trial?

Sleep well tonite!

Will you so vociferously defend those in Guantanimo that are asking for a fair trial?

After all...if we are to respect the rule of law...and be a "nation of laws and not of men" then any potential impropriety or miscarriage of justice...regardless of who is threatened...threatens us all equally?

Right?

And it certainly puts into question the oft quoted maxim by some on this board that suggests that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear? This would seem to really put it all into question...and as a law and order guy like yourself...you will definately be reviewing what this government has been doing...

I am sure...

Will you so vociferously defend those in Guantanimo that are asking for a fair trial?

After all...if we are to respect the rule of law...and be a "nation of laws and not of men" then any potential impropriety or miscarriage of justice...regardless of who is threatened...threatens us all equally?

Right?

And it certainly puts into question the oft quoted maxim by some on this board that suggests that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear? This would seem to really put it all into question...and as a law and order guy like yourself...you will definately be reviewing what this government has been doing...

I am sure...

.............No!

No self respecting conservative would sit back and allow a witch hunt to ruin a man's life because the Dems need an excuse to distance themselves from their war vote.

Rule of law? There are types of laws that were placed aside in order to bring an indictment against Libby in the first place.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/03/the_potemkin_prosecution_part_1.html


you're killing me....the comedy has got to stop.....LOL!!

/ahhh, the beauty of the law applied is that it exposes hypocrites for what they are.....

Will you so vociferously defend those in Guantanimo that are asking for a fair trial?

After all...if we are to respect the rule of law...and be a "nation of laws and not of men" then any potential impropriety or miscarriage of justice...regardless of who is threatened...threatens us all equally?

Right?

And it certainly puts into question the oft quoted maxim by some on this board that suggests that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear? This would seem to really put it all into question...and as a law and order guy like yourself...you will definately be reviewing what this government has been doing...

I am sure...

We should do what all nations at war have always done with the enemy. They should get a quick trial on their way to being shot. A punishment that is far more humane than our enemy's fondness for sawing off our heads. Of course the reason they saw the heads of their victims is because that is the prescribed method of dealing with the infidel as it is written in their book, which btw they believe to be the exact word of Allah. Allahu Akbar!

The folks at Gitmo aren't there by accident. If, God forbid, they were there by accidnet they have probably already been released, may it please the messenger of Allah. Allah's remaining soldiers at Gitmo weren't too worried about anyone's rights when they were picked up off the battlefied where they attempted to disguise themselves as civilians while they fought like military. They weren't too worried about human rights when we dragged them out from under a rock someplace, while they were planning the death and destruction of innocent civillians.

So call me crazy, but no, I don't have alot of sympathy for the terrorists, may that please the messenger of Let's cut the BS already.

We should do what all nations at war have always done with the enemy. They should get a quick trial on their way to being shot. A punishment that is far more humane than our enemy's fondness for sawing off our heads. Of course the reason they saw the heads of their victims is because that is the prescribed method of dealing with the infidel as it is written in their book, which btw they believe to be the exact word of Allah. Allahu Akbar!

The folks at Gitmo aren't there by accident. If, God forbid, they were there by accidnet they have probably already been released, may it please the messenger of Allah. Allah's remaining soldiers at Gitmo weren't too worried about anyone's rights when they were picked up off the battlefied where they attempted to disguise themselves as civilians while they fought like military. They weren't too worried about human rights when we dragged them out from under a rock someplace, while they were planning the death and destruction of innocent civillians.

So call me crazy, but no, I don't have alot of sympathy for the terrorists, may that please the messenger of Let's cut the BS already.

You are funny...and you make me laugh.

You care nothing about laws, you could care less about potential miscarriages of justice...you cut and paste for partisanship...enjoy your trip to relativity, I hear that "conservatives" used to hate the very concept.

Libby trial--open, jury, in accordance to the consitution the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment...BAD!!!

Guantanamo trials--closed, no jury, outside the boundries of our constitution...HANG 'EM HIGH!

Thanks...perfectly clear now.


Funny, funny stuff...

you're killing me....the comedy has got to stop.....LOL!!

/ahhh, the beauty of the law applied is that it exposes hypocrites for what they are.....


Killing You?!?

Ahh not really. You must have me confused with some guy named Ahmed who is taking the Qu'ran way too seriously. He and several million of his buddies actually do want to kill you.

I just want you to wake up and smell the tripple half caf latte or whatever it is that the left wing bed-wetters drink in the morning these days.

I'm not the hypocrit. I didn't support the Clinton BS either. The hypocrits are the guys who went ape during the Clinton mess, but now applaud this Libby fiasco.

You want cinnamin with your latte Sir?

Those last two posts may sum up PO.

Oh the irony!

Thanks for the entertainment.

Len

You are funny...and you make me laugh.

You care nothing about laws, you could care less about potential miscarriages of justice...you cut and paste for partisanship...enjoy your trip to relativity, I hear that "conservatives" used to hate the very concept.

Libby trial--open, jury, in accordance to the consitution the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment...BAD!!!

Guantanamo trials--closed, no jury, outside the boundries of our constitution...HANG 'EM HIGH!

Thanks...perfectly clear now.


Funny, funny stuff...

C'mon now you can do better than that.

I cut and pasted an answer because you are the type of guy who can't appreciate an argument unless it was previously published somewhere. Didn't someone once write "You wouldn't believe that your house was on fire unless someone published a double blind peer reviewed article about it." Sorry, I'm sure that I botched the quote but it seems to rings a bell. So anyway just respond to the post, but don't hide behind some weak arse "perfectly clear now" pablum. Maybe it's clear to you, but you haven't answered anything.

The last time that I checked Americans were still free to publically state their disagreement/discontent/disgust over the outcome of a public trial. Yes, I think the Libby trial is a travesty. I said so. I put forth arguments as to why. I hope that it is perfectly clear to you. If it wasn't you'd be a moron. No offense to morons.

The last time I checked the United States Constituion applied to citizens of the United States, not to foreign murderous whackjobs that want to destroy the United States. You know, the type of folks locked up in Gitmo. So let's give 'em a court martial, and let the trial take it's course. I've every confidence that they'll recieve far more justice than they have shown us.

What's clear to me is that you don't have any arguement of your own. Geez, I don't know why I waste my time replying to such vacuous posts as yours.

Those last two posts may sum up PO.

Oh the irony!

Thanks for the entertainment.

Len

Good one! Now that's a contribution to the discussion.

So why do you even post something like that? Are you attempting to feign sometype of intellectual superiority?

Couldn't come up with a counter argument, but you just had to make your disdain known. Well, you made yourself part of the record. Congratulations.

Thanks for helping me burn 25 seconds of my life that I'll never get back.

How did you go from Niger to the Congo? Is this some type of bait and switch?

The one doing the switching is Wilson, who tried (successfully) to get you to think his "mission" had debunked the "16 words" and that we were only concerned about Niger.

However, Bush said Africa, not Niger. Based on British intel which Britian still stands behind.


And just keep forgetting the fact that our own CIA told Bush and Cheney to lose the language about the yellow cake because of it's unreliability.

Now who's doing the switching? The CIA had a yellowcake reference pulled out of a speech Bush was going to give in Cincinnati, but they continued to believe that Iraq was seeking yellowcake until after the invasion. They did not say: "Don't mention yellowcake".

Good one! Now that's a contribution to the discussion.

So why do you even post something like that? Are you attempting to feign sometype of intellectual superiority?

Couldn't come up with a counter argument, but you just had to make your disdain known. Well, you made yourself part of the record. Congratulations.

Thanks for helping me burn 25 seconds of my life that I'll never get back.

you can't really believe that the following is true:

Libby lied to a grand Jury
Libby got caught
Libby had a trial
A jury of his peers found him guilty of purjury.
However, a british website found out that there was uranium pwoder in the Congo so
Therefor Libby should go free.

I can''t believe that even you are that dense..........

so consequently....I was entertained by you and the spyderman calling each other crazy.

Len

The original 16 words related to Niger, not Congo.



Nope. Bush said Africa.

But Libby is guilty of lying and obstruction of justice...

One step closer to reality.

Oh, and if the 16 words in the SOTU were true, why did the White House have them removed from the transcript?

Speaking of reality...

This is the second time you made that feeble claim. The first time, I helpfully pointed out that, nope, it's still there. Did you forget?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

C'mon now you can do better than that.

I cut and pasted an answer because you are the type of guy who can't appreciate an argument unless it was previously published somewhere. Didn't someone once write "You wouldn't believe that your house was on fire unless someone published a double blind peer reviewed article about it." Sorry, I'm sure that I botched the quote but it seems to rings a bell. So anyway just respond to the post, but don't hide behind some weak arse "perfectly clear now" pablum. Maybe it's clear to you, but you haven't answered anything.

The last time that I checked Americans were still free to publically state their disagreement/discontent/disgust over the outcome of a public trial. Yes, I think the Libby trial is a travesty. I said so. I put forth arguments as to why. I hope that it is perfectly clear to you. If it wasn't you'd be a moron. No offense to morons.

The last time I checked the United States Constituion applied to citizens of the United States, not to foreign murderous whackjobs that want to destroy the United States. You know, the type of folks locked up in Gitmo. So let's give 'em a court martial, and let the trial take it's course. I've every confidence that they'll recieve far more justice than they have shown us.

What's clear to me is that you don't have any arguement of your own. Geez, I don't know why I waste my time replying to such vacuous posts as yours.

Hey if you can't see the glaring inconsistencies you raised in your assorted posts in this thread...then good luck with that.

If you can ascertain without a trial who is and who is not guilty, but when a trial does happen in open court cannot see justice being dispensed...then good luck with that.

It is difficult to argue logically with someone that would prefer to operate on baser instincts. But hey, if the rule of law is a fluxuating "limbo stick" for you...my only hope is that the bar is never lowered, so that we would sooner go around it...

Good luck with your relativism, I hear it is the new vogue for whatever it is that former conservatives are calling themselves, but being relativists you would probably just keep the old moniker, despite not resembling it...even the slightest bit.

U R right. Someone has to pay for everything!

Keep reading the thread, it's all very simple. Even a liberal could understand it. Well, maybe not, that's asking alot. Let's say that even my dog can understand it.

It's sad to learn you have a dog and we feel sorry for it's lot in life - leave the poor animal out of your rantings.

you can't really believe that the following is true:

Libby lied to a grand Jury
Libby got caught
Libby had a trial
A jury of his peers found him guilty of purjury.
However, a british website found out that there was uranium pwoder in the Congo so
Therefor Libby should go free.

I can''t believe that even you are that dense..........

so consequently....I was entertained by you and the spyderman calling each other crazy.

Len

Ok, I'll play.

No, Of course I don't think that Libby should go free because uranium powder was found in the Congo. I was merely pointing out the little reported fact that the administration was correct, the 16 words in the SOTU were justified, and that J Wilson is a liar and a political hack. It's all right there in the post if you read the sourced quotes and follow the links provided for more background.

I think that Libby shouldn't have been on trial in the first place, and I sincerely hope that the he get's a new trial or the conviction is overturned on appeal or failing those he's pardoned before he has to do any time. How about some community servce like the honest upholder of the Constitution Sandy Berger? Sorry, couldn't resist.

If you read my posts here, you'll see that some reasonable people have reason to believe that the case of against Libby was flimsy. Russert testimony that demonstrated his inconsistencies with the facts that wasn't allowed etc.

I believe that there was no there there in the Libby case. I think the process charge was weak and could happen to alot of well meaning people in his position. I think it is a dangerous precedent to keep railroading people like this, Libby, Martha Stewart for example.

I also think that it is terrible that one of the jurors was a writer for the washington post and a neighbor of a key prosecution witness. Said juror had motive to want a quilty verdict to increase the value of a potential book deal.

Yeah, I think that there is alot in this case that stinks to high heaven. Just like I didn't agree with the OJ verdict, and alot of other verdicts that seem fishy.

I much prefer your second post to the first one. I must admit that I'm tempted to throw up a "dirve by" post, and I probably have let one or two slip from time to time. Allow me to take this moment to apologize for them at this time.

However, I can't guarantee that I won't do it again. On that point I confess to being a hypocrit. :D

you can't really believe that the following is true:

Libby lied to a grand Jury
Libby got caught
Libby had a trial
A jury of his peers found him guilty of purjury.
However, a british website found out that there was uranium pwoder in the Congo so
Therefor Libby should go free.

I can''t believe that even you are that dense..........

so consequently....I was entertained by you and the spyderman calling each other crazy.

Len


the litespeed version:

Libby lied to a grand Jury
Libby got caught
Libby had a trial
A jury of his peers found him guilty of purjury.
However, gay people choose to love one another thereby causing Gods wrath upon New Orleans therefore it was a witchhunt and Libby should go free....:D

It's sad to learn you have a dog and we feel sorry for it's lot in life - leave the poor animal out of your rantings.

Who is the we?

You speaking for the whole board, or just a selection, what?

Hey if you can't see the glaring inconsistencies you raised in your assorted posts in this thread...then good luck with that.

If you can ascertain without a trial who is and who is not guilty, but when a trial does happen in open court cannot see justice being dispensed...then good luck with that.

It is difficult to argue logically with someone that would prefer to operate on baser instincts. But hey, if the rule of law is a fluxuating "limbo stick" for you...my only hope is that the bar is never lowered, so that we would sooner go around it...

Good luck with your relativism, I hear it is the new vogue for whatever it is that former conservatives are calling themselves, but being relativists you would probably just keep the old moniker, despite not resembling it...even the slightest bit.

You think morals, truth, and law are practiced as absolutes in this country? Now that's something to say "good luck to with that." to! The Libby trial sucked in terms of absolutes. I put forth an argument as to why. You failed to respond why not. Good luck with that. What moral absolute is served by nailing someone on a process charge for a baseless investigation?

I argued with sourced statements, and you had nothing but condescention, which is on par with the most base of instincts. Good luck with that.

You want relativism, the look at the relative treatment of dems and repubs in the mainstream media. I provided a link to that one in a post yeasterday. What planet are you from friend? Seriously.

BTW, I never said the terrorist shouldn't have a trial. Of course they should have a trial. It wouldn't be right to shoot them before we tried them. Your reading comprehension is lacking. I made that point very clear.

You think morals, truth, and law are practiced as absolutes in this country? Now that's something to say "good luck to with that." to! The Libby trial sucked in terms of absolutes. I put forth an argument as to why. You failed to respond why not. Good luck with that. What moral absolute is served by nailing someone on a process charge for a baseless investigation?

I argued with sourced statements, and you had nothing but condescention, which is on par with the most base of instincts. Good luck with that.

You want relativism, the look at the relative treatment of dems and repubs in the mainstream media. I provided a link to that one in a post yeasterday. What planet are you from friend? Seriously.

BTW, I never said the terrorist shouldn't have a trial. Of course they should have a trial. It wouldn't be right to shoot them before we tried them. Your reading comprehension is lacking. I made that point very clear.


hey J ever wonder why ol Libby lied in the first place???? I mean, it's a pretty well known fact that lying under oath is illegal.....witch hunt indeed, no lie, no crime...pretty simple really.....

What about the reference to abortion?

A law applies to all...or to none. If it applies to some, it is not a law.

Before I go off and live my life for the weekend just want to leave you with a little "utopist" speak from a person that saw how "liberty" can be corrupted by the very individuals that claimed to keep it closest to them...Benjamin Constant.

People open the way for tyranny, flattering themselves that they are being well-treated. Everyone marches, his eyes lowered, on the narrow path which is to lead him safely towards his grave. But when arbitrary power is tolerated, it spreads in such a way that the most obscure citizen can suddenly find it in arms against him.

Men would like to compromise with justice, to go beynd its bounds for one day, to tackle one obstacle, and afterwards to return to order. They would like both the guarantee of the rule and the success of the exception...One single deviation destroys it, in the same way as, in an arithmetical calculation, an error of one or of a thousand falsifies the result equally.

One cannot refuse liberty to some and accord it to others.

hey J ever wonder why ol Libby lied in the first place???? I mean, it's a pretty well known fact that lying under oath is illegal.....witch hunt indeed, no lie, no crime...pretty simple really.....

That was my original question...you know personal responsibilty.

It led us here...you don't want to be here. Here is a very illogical place...

What about the reference to abortion?

I was under the gun..multitasking and all, and wasn't able to fit it in a way that made sense....:)

If Saddam wanted yellowcake, why didn't he just break the seals on the stuff he already had?

You know, like the North Koreans did with their plutonium after Boy George backed out of our agreement with them?

If Saddam wanted yellowcake, why didn't he just break the seals on the stuff he already had?

You know, like the North Koreans did with their plutonium after Boy George backed out of our agreement with them?

Sattelite surveilance and cruise missiles?

A law applies to all...or to none. If it applies to some, it is not a law.

Before I go off and live my life for the weekend just want to leave you with a little "utopist" speak from a person that saw how "liberty" can be corrupted by the very individuals that claimed to keep it closest to them...Benjamin Constant.

People open the way for tyranny, flattering themselves that they are being well-treated. Everyone marches, his eyes lowered, on the narrow path which is to lead him safely towards his grave. But when arbitrary power is tolerated, it spreads in such a way that the most obscure citizen can suddenly find it in arms against him.

Men would like to compromise with justice, to go beynd its bounds for one day, to tackle one obstacle, and afterwards to return to order. They would like both the guarantee of the rule and the success of the exception...One single deviation destroys it, in the same way as, in an arithmetical calculation, an error of one or of a thousand falsifies the result equally.

One cannot refuse liberty to some and accord it to others.




So let me guess, they taught you a new concept "relativism" in one of your classes, and you thought that you'd try it out in an online politics debate forum.

Relativism - n. A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

courtesy of the free online dictionary. Thanks www.

I really have a hard time seeing how this is a case for the relativism argument. David Bois, Al Gore's onetime lawyer, has come out in Libby's defense on this one, saying that the investigation should have been dropped after Fitzgerald new the source of the leak was Armitage. Plame wasn't covert. There was no crime.

What Arbitrary Power? You mean like when you satisfy the mandate of your special prosecution you keep digging in order to nail someone on a process charge? That kind of arbitrary power?

Do you really want to set an absolute principle where by a false investigation is begun in order to indict people on process charges? That is insane. Once the truth came out about Armitage and Plame that should have been case closed.

Maybe Libby and the Veep's office campaigned against Joe Wilson, SO WHAT! They were simply fighting back, and as the facts have proved they were correct and it was in fact Joe Wilson who was lying.

You want to live in an absolute world? I know of an absolute world that has been in the press lately. You should live in the absolutism of Islam. The world of Islam is the absolute word of Allah as given to man by the messenger of Allah, the prophet Mohammad. There is an absolute world for you.

Unfortunately, your life in Islam might not be that great. You'll have to shave the front of your head to signify that you are dhimmi. You will also have to be subserviant in all ways to your Muslim masters. Sounds Fun, huh? Yeah that arbitrary power of the prophet Mohammad is a laugh riot.

Absolutism, in a practical sense, is a myth. Pure sophistry really. We have a system with a bit of relativism built in just for the purpose that we are not cut out to live absolute lives.

Having said that, in an absolute practice of the law, the CIA leak case wouldn't have degraded to the point of there being a Libby trial. Did Libby lie? Or did his foggy recollection not mesh with the other foggy recollections? Hell, I don't know. I do know that the jury didn't get to hear damaging testimony concerning the questionable memory and previous false statements of the prosecution's key witness.

And, oh heck yes one can favor liberty to one and deny it to another. If you want to be an American and you go thru the process legally, then by God, you should enjoy our Constitution to the fullest of the law. On the other hand, if you are a foreign unlawful combatant hell-bent to destroy the United States, then we should do everything we can to speed up you destiny to meet the 72 virgins, if it please the messenger of Allah.

Relativism? Is that how you really talk? Do you really go around associating in the real world like you're reading from a philosophy book? That's absurd. Maybe you should write a paper on sophistry.

If Saddam wanted yellowcake, why didn't he just break the seals on the stuff he already had?

You know, like the North Koreans did with their plutonium after Boy George backed out of our agreement with them?

I don't know why friend. You'll have to ask Saddam that.

Oh Wait. Saddam is DEAD!

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

hey J ever wonder why ol Libby lied in the first place???? I mean, it's a pretty well known fact that lying under oath is illegal.....witch hunt indeed, no lie, no crime...pretty simple really.....

I don't know why. Do you know why?

Maybe if you were asked questions over and over that other people had been asked over and over you might say something that didn't match at some point. Throw in comments about thousands of documents etc.

It's a good question though. That is for sure.

Who is the we?

You speaking for the whole board, or just a selection, what?


you're sending us quotes from an obvious biased "news" source and confusing multiple different issues into one justification to help you believe an administration that you know, in your heart, is totally inept and corrupt. this isn't proof of anything...is laughable at best and makes me feel sorry for you.

I don't know why. Do you know why?

Maybe if you were asked questions over and over that other people had been asked over and over you might say something that didn't match at some point. Throw in comments about thousands of documents etc.

It's a good question though. That is for sure.

my guess...he was covering something up.....no need to lie if you weren't as to being asked something over and over, you only lie if you can't remember your "story"...put me up and ask me a million times, the truth is the truth except when your a Con it seems..

So let me guess, they taught you a new concept "relativism" in one of your classes, and you thought that you'd try it out in an online politics debate forum.

Relativism - n. A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

courtesy of the free online dictionary. Thanks www.

I really have a hard time seeing how this is a case for the relativism argument. David Bois, Al Gore's onetime lawyer, has come out in Libby's defense on this one, saying that the investigation should have been dropped after Fitzgerald new the source of the leak was Armitage. Plame wasn't covert. There was no crime.

What Arbitrary Power? You mean like when you satisfy the mandate of your special prosecution you keep digging in order to nail someone on a process charge? That kind of arbitrary power?

Do you really want to set an absolute principle where by a false investigation is begun in order to indict people on process charges? That is insane. Once the truth came out about Armitage and Plame that should have been case closed.

Maybe Libby and the Veep's office campaigned against Joe Wilson, SO WHAT! They were simply fighting back, and as the facts have proved they were correct and it was in fact Joe Wilson who was lying.

You want to live in an absolute world? I know of an absolute world that has been in the press lately. You should live in the absolutism of Islam. The world of Islam is the absolute word of Allah as given to man by the messenger of Allah, the prophet Mohammad. There is an absolute world for you.

Unfortunately, your life in Islam might not be that great. You'll have to shave the front of your head to signify that you are dhimmi. You will also have to be subserviant in all ways to your Muslim masters. Sounds Fun, huh? Yeah that arbitrary power of the prophet Mohammad is a laugh riot.

Absolutism, in a practical sense, is a myth. Pure sophistry really. We have a system with a bit of relativism built in just for the purpose that we are not cut out to live absolute lives.

Having said that, in an absolute practice of the law, the CIA leak case wouldn't have degraded to the point of there being a Libby trial. Did Libby lie? Or did his foggy recollection not mesh with the other foggy recollections? Hell, I don't know. I do know that the jury didn't get to hear damaging testimony concerning the questionable memory and previous false statements of the prosecution's key witness.

And, oh heck yes one can favor liberty to one and deny it to another. If you want to be an American and you go thru the process legally, then by God, you should enjoy our Constitution to the fullest of the law. On the other hand, if you are a foreign unlawful combatant hell-bent to destroy the United States, then we should do everything we can to speed up you destiny to meet the 72 virgins, if it please the messenger of Allah.

Relativism? Is that how you really talk? Do you really go around associating in the real world like you're reading from a philosophy book? That's absurd. Maybe you should write a paper on sophistry.


again, with the mixing of ideas....I would be willing to bet a lot of $ that you're single..

Sattelite surveilance and cruise missiles?

so containment was working, and this war was a farce after all. you're finally beginning to see the light.

so containment was working, and this war was a farce after all. you're finally beginning to see the light.

Hell, I understood the truth from the outset. I can understand why your side is confused with the diverse messages eminating from your leadership. They are reflected here in the various arguments.

I don't know why friend. You'll have to ask Saddam that.

Oh Wait. Saddam is DEAD!

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Of course Scooter lmao got a bum deal because it's our terrorist president and vp who should be in prison. I hope this sets you off. lol . Also what these supposed "conservative" Christians have done with Christianity is a perversion to the utmost. Bush is a Christian the same way I'm heavyweight champion of the world. What was the initial title of this adventure? answer, shock and awe, ie we were going to terrorize them into crapping their pants. Unfortunately for the chickenhawks, we underestimated their resolve as Human Beings...Hey tough guy, weren't you the one with the bright swords quote in your tagline. The US forces were taking 5 foot tall middle aged women to fight their battles. You are welcome to polish up that sword and jump back into the fray tough guy...oy veh....You are aware that our Delta Force are illegal combatants by the way. No uniforms, and all that stuff. We don't even acknowledge they exist. Hey I drink scotch.. It's a lot less intoxicating than the kool aid you can't get enough of.. Ok forget the drinking, try prayer, and I mean the Lord's Prayer. Not all of that stuff about killing and torture and justifying your own twisted logic. Surrender to God. Believe me. You need it. In the grand scheme of things we will all be dead very soon..It's not too late to repent. Ahhhh forget it, kill them all..Keep your attitude, you won't have the last laugh. LMAO:)

Of course Scooter lmao got a bum deal because it's our terrorist president and vp who should be in prison. I hope this sets you off. lol . Also what these supposed "conservative" Christians have done with Christianity is a perversion to the utmost. Bush is a Christian the same way I'm heavyweight champion of the world. What was the initial title of this adventure? answer, shock and awe, ie we were going to terrorize them into crapping their pants. Unfortunately for the chickenhawks, we underestimated their resolve as Human Beings...Hey tough guy, weren't you the one with the bright swords quote in your tagline. The US forces were taking 5 foot tall middle aged women to fight their battles. You are welcome to polish up that sword and jump back into the fray tough guy...oy veh....You are aware that our Delta Force are illegal combatants by the way. No uniforms, and all that stuff. We don't even acknowledge they exist. Hey I drink scotch.. It's a lot less intoxicating than the kool aid you can't get enough of.. Ok forget the drinking, try prayer, and I mean the Lord's Prayer. Not all of that stuff about killing and torture and justifying your own twisted logic. Surrender to God. Believe me. You need it. In the grand scheme of things we will all be dead very soon..It's not too late to repent. Ahhhh forget it, kill them all..Keep your attitude, you won't have the last laugh. LMAO:)

More water, less scotch. You seem to be doing fine on your beverage of choice and I believe you may be right, kool aid is too strong for ya. :)

More water, less scotch. You seem to be doing fine on your beverage of choice and I believe you may be right, kool aid is too strong for ya. :)

What the hell are you doing wasting your time on this forum? These fat bastard leaders of yours, limbo and newt are telling us this is WWIII. Shouldn't you be shipping out to the front? We need all hands on deck. Listen chickenhawk, I could lend you my cocker spaniel so he could talk a little sense into ya!!!!! Or you could tell him about our fearless leaders, w and dick....

The Kool Aid you're drinking is definitely too strong for me. I could drink a bottle of Johnny Black a day and my thinking wouldn't be as screwy as yours.

The Kool Aid you're drinking is definitely too strong for me. I could drink a bottle of Johnny Black a day and my thinking wouldn't be as screwy as yours.

I'm sure that's right.

I'm sure that's right.

Good luck in Iraq!:eek:

What the hell are you doing wasting your time on this forum? These fat bastard leaders of yours, limbo and newt are telling us this is WWIII. Shouldn't you be shipping out to the front? We need all hands on deck. Listen chickenhawk, I could lend you my cocker spaniel so he could talk a little sense into ya!!!!! Or you could tell him about our fearless leaders, w and dick....
Snakes has already been in our military and...

Unless the U.S. starts taking recruits for the "Grandpa Brigade" in which case we have already lost...Snake ain't gonna be invited this time...:D

Off to go run...

you're sending us quotes from an obvious biased "news" source and confusing multiple different issues into one justification to help you believe an administration that you know, in your heart, is totally inept and corrupt. this isn't proof of anything...is laughable at best and makes me feel sorry for you.

AP, Washington Post, BBC, and others are totally biased? I can appreciate that.

So instead of instead of having a justifiable response to the points you feign indignation. Very strong.

I especially like the part where you have special insight into my thoughts, I mean doubts, about the administration.

Talk about laughable. I'd say more like a joke.

my guess...he was covering something up.....no need to lie if you weren't as to being asked something over and over, you only lie if you can't remember your "story"...put me up and ask me a million times, the truth is the truth except when your a Con it seems..

What was he covering up?

Russert's memory was a little fickle in a manner similar to Libby's, but the judge wouldn't let the defense bring that up to the jury.

Libby didn't have a reason to "lie", but he had every opportunity to make a memory mistake.

Do you really look at this whole thing and tell yourself, "Now here is a good example of Justice?"

again, with the mixing of ideas....I would be willing to bet a lot of $ that you're single..

If you can't keep up the ideas, perhaps you should stick with posting in the lounge.

Again condescension is not an argument.

Snakes has already been in our military and...

Unless the U.S. starts taking recruits for the "Grandpa Brigade" in which case we have already lost...Snake ain't gonna be invited this time...:D

Off to go run...

especially those with oil experience. A good patriot like steam should have left months ago.

military is taking up to 42. I'm still waiting for j to post from the front.


See you guys have it all wrong. The forged documents with the Niger govt Seals on them were from the Congo.

Libby lied to a grand jury
The case proved it
The jury slapped him with 4 out of 5 after deliberating a week (thoughtful, not knee jerk)

What does the Congo have to do with Scooter lying?
Nothing.
What does the Congo have to do with outing Valerie Plame for Joe Wilson's "What I didn't find in Africa"
Nothing
I guess Cons are just born free of Logic Boards

oh and a little FYI, when Wilson first heard about Bush mentioning Africa he thought W was referring to one of the other nations, but Niger was mentioned

"I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case."

maybe you actually ought to read Wilson beforre attacking it

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

maybe you actually ought to read Wilson beforre attacking it

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

And maybe you should read the Senate Intelligence report on the matter.

the litespeed version:

Libby lied to a grand Jury
Libby got caught
Libby had a trial
A jury of his peers found him guilty of purjury.
However, gay people choose to love one another thereby causing Gods wrath upon New Orleans therefore it was a witchhunt and Libby should go free....:D

Damn, I knew the Gay's had something to do with Katrina. That 700 club is the sh.t, huh.

Thanks

And maybe you should read the Senate Intelligence report on the matter.

Libby lying and obstructing an investigation into the outing of Plame?

like the rest of your points

NOTHING

wah, wah, wah Congo, wah wah wah

Typical Con, if the facts don't match the history

rewrite the history