Jump to content

More news you might have missed...


Peter_Puget
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Fairweather:

 

The burden of proof, when we are talking about what we think of public figures, lies in WHAT THE HECK DO YOU THINK?

 

What the heck do you think? Were Clintonites guilty in the Vince Foster affair but Bushites not guilty in this mess? If I ran a search on this board, would I find where you've previously speculated about the guilt of someone not proven guilty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe a grand jury was ever convened in the Vince Foster case. Open media speculation and political biting is not a felony. Disclosing the details of a grand jury proceeding is. But then, you know that. Why claim conspiracy/coverup when it's clear that the law is at work here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re read the thread. It's simple enough. Foraker implied a "cover up" was involved in the lack of grand jury disclosure. I subsequently pointed out that grand jury rules prevent anyone involved from discussing the proceedings.

 

No one is claiming your right to speculate is wrong. Once again you are either not reading the "reply-to" lines properly, or have given up the argument to your muddy-water strategy.

 

BTW: Vince Foster committed suicide. Even his wife agrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fairweather, I don't now about the "reply to" lines, but I distinctly got the impression you were replying to my post when you referred to Vince Foster in immediate reply to where I mentioned him. And I don't see where he was previously mentioned by any party to this thread. Silly me.

 

Carry on with your whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aha. Turn bout is fair play. You are "improving" your posts just as I am (I would say that I only edit for grammer and similar matters, not for actual content, and that you actually sought to strengthen your argument, but we could have a whole tangential debate about that, I'm sure). OK then, moving on...

 

What do you actually think Rove may have done or not done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Wilson/Plame team had an agenda and it was just plain stupid to send such a team to Niger. Obviously, someone was a little overzealous in disclosing Plame to the press. Robert Novak has claimed it was common knowledge. I don't know....and neither do you. Once again, a GRAND JURY has determined that there is not enough evidence to bring Rove to trial - and the standards are pretty low. It really doesn't matter what you or I think, but I don't think it's necessarily right to hysterically claim "cover-up" in the hope that the myth will become codified in the public psyche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today it was announced that 2500 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Also today, Republican Senators approved of amnesty for killers of American soldiers in Iraq.

 

Now, dear coward, how personally might you take it if such an open season were declared upon you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps. But as I've confessed before - I don't really care about the bogus WMD reason put forth. There were plenty of others just as good...or better.

 

You apparently agree with the neocons who said they wanted to invade Iraq from day one of the Bush presidency, back when they were complaining that the outgoing Clinton folks were obsessed with terrorism and saying that we shouldn't engage in "nation building?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today it was announced that 2500 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Also today, Republican Senators approved of amnesty for killers of American soldiers in Iraq.

 

Now, dear coward, how personally might you take it if such an open season were declared upon you?

 

Coward? Pretty tough language there, sport. Now, maybe you could explain your claim. I see no such vote in the record - nor is it tucked into the suplemental budget just passed.

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/r109/r109.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps. But as I've confessed before - I don't really care about the bogus WMD reason put forth. There were plenty of others just as good...or better.

 

You apparently agree with the neocons who said they wanted to invade Iraq from day one of the Bush presidency, back when they were complaining that the outgoing Clinton folks were obsessed with terrorism and saying that we shouldn't engage in "nation building?"

 

1 - Firing missiles on coalition aircraft patroling the no-fly zone in violation of the cease-fire agreement.

2 - Attempting to assasinate a former president of the United States.

3 - The post-gulf war/cease-fire agreement murder of over 600 Kuwaiti POW's.

 

Any of these acts justify our invasion, IMO. But I now honestly believe the reason for the invasion of Iraq is similar to the reason we became involved in Vietnam during the cold war - To demonstrate American power and resolve to our enemies post 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get a clue people, Rove is cooperating with the prosecution to save his own porcine ass.

 

Fairweather opines: "Once again, a GRAND JURY has determined that there is not enough evidence to bring Rove to trial "

 

FALSE. A grand jury has made no such decision, nor voted on an indictment. The prosecuter has declined to seek charges...for now.

 

From Time mag: "Luskin had just received a fax from Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, saying that he was formally notifying Luskin that absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove."

 

Which indicates pretty clearly that as long as fat boy continues to cooperate in the Libby case, which has yet to go to trial, Fitzgerald won't burn his ass. Otherwise all bets are off WRT Rover's legal jeopardy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I now honestly believe the reason for the invasion of Iraq is similar to the reason we became involved in Vietnam during the cold war - To demonstrate American power and resolve to our enemies post 9/11.

 

That is a great reason to go to war and it is turning out really well. Fairweather for President in 2008!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still not following you.

 

Or maybe I am. The story that Rather got fried for was absolutely true. The document he waived in front of the camera was apparently a forgery, but the story it told was absolutely true. The White House did such a good job manipulating and distorting things that the main story that came out in everybody's mind was "Rather was biased" rather than "Bush shirked his duties."

 

Good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...