Andy9o8 2 #26 March 6, 2007 And don't forget Bush's own grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush. Helps his own son along a path to the Presidency - by way of directorship of the CIA no less, and ambassadorship to RED CHINA!! And now, Prescott Bush is dead, too. Suspiciously enough, he, too, was buried without an autopsy. And of all of Prescott Bush's grandchildren, which one becomes President? That's right, it's the stupid one. Something stinks here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #27 March 6, 2007 Quote>That is bollocks. >Armitage was not pro war and not in any conspiracy Quade didn't say that; NCclimber did. Bzzzzzzzzt! QuoteLibby definately was a part of the conspiracy There was no conspiracy. If there was SOMEONE would have alerted Libby to what the heck was going on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,571 #28 March 6, 2007 Princess Diana Lady Di, related by marriage to the British head of state, was killed in a highly suspicious car crash in a Paris tunnel. She was known for her extra-marital dalliances. If Harry was really Bush's illegitimate love child, she could have caused a major international scandal by demanding DNA tests. Some Tramp Some Tramp (also known as "Fuck Off, Scum") was a loud and vocal (he stood in the square shouting) critic of the rundown state of Social Security, in which area he had much personal experience. Some Tramp was found dead in a Chicago bus shelter with a dirty needle still stuck in his veins. His death was ruled an accidental overdose. Bush no longer has to tolerate criticisms of the programs he would like to cut further.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,571 #29 March 6, 2007 QuoteBzzzzzzzzt! Bzzzzzzzzzt? Really? How does "Libby was part of the conspiracy" equate to "Armitage was pro war and in a conspiracy"?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #30 March 6, 2007 Pretty funny. Any yes, these conspiracy theories are pretty wacky, but so were the one's against Clinton. I just pulled a Limbaugh - "Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd." -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #31 March 6, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf the Bushies thought for a minute that he would bring down Cheney, he would have beed dead quite a while ago. You seem to be confusing administrations. Or is there a similarly lengthy list of suspicious deaths of people with direct ties to Dubya? It's a tad longer than that other list. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #32 March 6, 2007 QuoteYou seem to be confusing administrations. Or is there a similarly lengthy list of suspicious deaths of people with direct ties to Dubya? Which of those listed: A) died under suspicious circumstances AND b) had direct ties to Dubya? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #33 March 6, 2007 QuoteWhat evidence is there of a conspiracy? Is there evidence of anything more than Scooter finding himself in the crosshairs of an aggressive and talented special prosecutor, who jammed him up for inconsistencies in his recollection? Did Ken Starr get Clinton on any of the matters for which he was being investigated? Seems more like Starr stumbled onto an irrelevant matter that Clinton tried to hide. Was Martha Stewart convicted of insider trading? Or was it another case of unwise CYA, irrelevant to the initial inquiry? Though I think you're on target with the first two, Martha was guilty as sin. The charge they stuck her with was certainly relevent to the original inquiry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #34 March 6, 2007 QuoteQuoteYou seem to be confusing administrations. Or is there a similarly lengthy list of suspicious deaths of people with direct ties to Dubya? Which of those listed: A) died under suspicious circumstances AND b) had direct ties to Dubya? Everyone knows Ron Brown had Vince Foster killed. Of course, then he had to die, too. It's all so quee...uh...clear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #35 March 6, 2007 This is troubling IMHO: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/06/libby.juror/index.html "Washington resident and self-described registered Democrat" "It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's [Karl] Rove ... where are these other guys?' The process of the jury he describes sounds rigorous but with comments like that Libby didn't stand a snowballs chance in hell from the get go. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #36 March 6, 2007 Yes, he should be pardoned. The leak wasn't even an illegal act - the information already was common knowledge among many journalists. I have read about how it has become clear that Wilson's wife did indeed recommend him for the trip. It has also been recently reported that Joe Wilson and his wife (Plame, the not-so-secret CIA agent) had an agenda he wanted to support - discrediting Bush. There was no violation of the agents cover, and it turns out that what was said to discredit Wilson's findings is true. So, now that the only charges left are related to perjury which is hard to distinguish from bad memory, how is this different from Ken Starr's much maligned prosecution of Clinton?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #37 March 6, 2007 > how is this different from Ken Starr's much maligned prosecution of Clinton? Starr's prosecution failed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #38 March 6, 2007 Fox News is up to their old tricks . . . NickD BASE 194 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 March 6, 2007 Quote> how is this different from Ken Starr's much maligned prosecution of Clinton? Starr's prosecution failed. Perhaps if your only criteria for success is conviction of the President. But national shame, an indictment in the House, a disbarment in Ark, a large undisclosed settlement to Ms Jones - seems pretty successful. More than was managed with the Iran Contra process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #40 March 6, 2007 >Perhaps if your only criteria for success is conviction of the President. You're right. Only a fool would consider the actual outcome of a trial or impeachment, instead of using "national shame" to determine guilt or innocence. What would the spinmeisters do if people looked at verdicts? And of course it goes without saying that lying about a blowjob is a horrible, treasonous crime, whereas lying about outing one of our intelligence agents working on WMD proliferation is just an amusing, forgivable bumble. I mean, compared to how much blowjobs threaten america, WMD intelligence isn't even worth worrying about! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #41 March 7, 2007 QuoteThe leak wasn't even an illegal act - the information already was common knowledge among many journalists. Leaking classified information is illegal, regardless of how many people already have the information._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #42 March 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe leak wasn't even an illegal act - the information already was common knowledge among many journalists. Leaking classified information is illegal, regardless of how many people already have the information. Then Plame herself and Joe Wilson should be found guilty of leaking the info themselves. That fancy acronym of a law that supposedly was violated requires the person doing the leaking to know it is classified. That was not the case. The jury was prevented from hearing such evidence.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #43 March 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe leak wasn't even an illegal act - the information already was common knowledge among many journalists. Leaking classified information is illegal, regardless of how many people already have the information. Then Plame herself and Joe Wilson should be found guilty of leaking the info themselves. That fancy acronym of a law that supposedly was violated requires the person doing the leaking to know it is classified. That was not the case. The jury was prevented from hearing such evidence. Giving a politician the authority to declassify sensitive information as a retaliatory tool is like giving a teenager the keys to the liquor cabinet and the car at the same time...somebody is going to get hurt._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 March 7, 2007 Quote>Perhaps if your only criteria for success is conviction of the President. You're right. Only a fool would consider the actual outcome of a trial or impeachment, instead of using "national shame" to determine guilt or innocence. and only a fool (or a cheat) would ignore the rest of my sentence. He paid 6 to 7 figures in $$. While that has now become small change as BC takes the presidential lecture circuit to new heights, it's still real money. It also reduced the chances that he could have achieved any of his policy goals. The goal of Starr was to hurt the opposing party's President. He succeeded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,571 #45 March 7, 2007 Quoteand only a fool (or a cheat) would ignore the rest of my sentence. He paid 6 to 7 figures in $$. Oh come on. I bet you don't think, say, Michael Jackson's guilty just because he paid off that kid do you? Uhh, no wait, scratch thatDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 March 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteand only a fool (or a cheat) would ignore the rest of my sentence. He paid 6 to 7 figures in $$. Oh come on. I bet you don't think, say, Michael Jackson's guilty just because he paid off that kid do you? Uhh, no wait, scratch that We know Clinton committed perjury - he admitted to it. And the bar sanctioned him for it. We don't know if he is guilty of harassing Paula Jones. Just that after his admissions got that trial undismissed, he choose to settle. But the question was did Starr succeed in hurting Clinton. And that answer to that is obvious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #47 March 7, 2007 Question? Libby goes down (as he should) but how is it considered Justice served with Libby as he looks down the barrel of 25 years in jail but former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger gets sentenced to community service and probation??? Berger was fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them. According to CNN.com report in 2005. Can someone explain where we came up with that price list??? Either server Berger what he deserves or be consistant with Libby's conviction. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #48 March 7, 2007 I concur, Berger should have served hard time. If any personnel were killed due to anything he may have revealed he should hang down at 8th & I. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #49 March 7, 2007 QuoteFox News is up to their old tricks . . . NickD BASE 194 Bah Nick... they later said it was a typo and apologized. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #50 March 7, 2007 >The goal of Starr was to hurt the opposing party's President. He succeeded. >The goal of Starr was to hurt the opposing >party's President. He succeeded. Fair enough. So you admit the goal there was political in nature rather than a prosecution of a crime; I wish more right-wingers could bring themselves to see this. In that case, I agree that Starr succeeded. In this case, the goal was the prosecution of a man who covered up the outing of a CIA agent. That was successful as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
