• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

UPDATE: BUSH COMMUTES LIBBY'S SENTENCE -Courts can't touch Libby.

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Phokus
You know Genx, you could make your case without lying and regurgitating false GOP talking points.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

"Plame was ?covert? agent at time of name leak
Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment"
Click to expand...
Phokus there are a lot of question about the ?covert? status thing. Had they tried to charge anyone with leaking her name I doubt they could have gotten a conviction due to all the questions around her status.

If it was such an open and closed case that she was covert then how come Armitage was not charged with a crime for leaking her name in the first place?
How come Libby was not charged with that crime either?

Libby was sentenced to jail for 30 months for lying about a ?crime? that no one was charged with. That is why people like myself have a problem with this case.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Phokus
You know Genx, you could make your case without lying and regurgitating false GOP talking points.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

"Plame was ?covert? agent at time of name leak
Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment"</end quote></div>
Phokus there are a lot of question about the ?covert? status thing. Had they tried to charge anyone with leaking her name I doubt they could have gotten a conviction due to all the questions around her status.

If it was such an open and closed case that she was covert then how come Armitage was not charged with a crime for leaking her name in the first place?
How come Libby was not charged with that crime either?

Libby was sentenced to jail for 30 months for lying about a ?crime? that no one was charged with. That is why people like myself have a problem with this case.
Click to expand...

And just what crime was anyone charged with that Clinton was covering up? Did "people like yourself" show anything but elation about that?
 
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
And just what crime was anyone charged with that Clinton was covering up? Did "people like yourself" show anything but elation about that?</end quote></div>

Didn't you know that oral sex is a crime in D.C. 😉 In addition, it is a 'high crime and misdemeanor'.

 
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: sonoma1993
Didn't president Bush appoint a judge that convicted Libby found him guilty, or was it one of the prosecutors he appointed for this case?</end quote></div>

Actually, Deputy Attorney General James Comey (Bush appointee) nominated Independent Federal Prosecutor James Fitzpatrick (Bush appointee) to investigate the Plame leak. Fitzpatrick investigated, filed the charges against Libby and the case was assigned to Judge Reggie Walton (Bush appointee) who considered the jury verdict, the evidence (which he called "overwhelming") and rendered the sentence Bush called "excessive".

Obviously the fix was in.

Mrs Brofslowski, if you please?
"Wha wha WHAT?!?
 
Originally posted by: Bird222
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
And just what crime was anyone charged with that Clinton was covering up? Did "people like yourself" show anything but elation about that?</end quote></div>

Didn't you know that oral sex is a crime in D.C. 😉 In addition, it is a 'high crime and misdemeanor'.
Click to expand...

It's only a crime if you are chubby chasing and got caught like Clinton. 😉
 
Bush won't rule out pardon

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday refused to rule out an eventual pardon for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
ADVERTISEMENT

"As to the future, I rule nothing in and nothing out," the president said a day after commuting Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case.

This is a breaking news update. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) ? The White House on Tuesday declined to rule out the possibility of an eventual pardon for former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. But spokesman Tony Snow said, for now, President Bush is satisfied with his decision to commute Libby's 2 1/2-year prison sentence.

"He thought any jail time was excessive. He did not see fit to have Scooter Libby taken to jail," Snow said.

Snow said that even with Bush's decision, Libby remains with a felony conviction on his record, two years' probation, a $250,000 fine and probable loss of his legal career. "This is hardly a slap on the wrist," Snow said.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, who sentenced Libby to prison, declined Tuesday to discuss the case or his views on sentencing. "To now say anything about sentencing on the heels of yesterday's events will inevitably be construed as comments on the president's commutation decision, which would be inappropriate," the judge said in an e-mail.
Click to expand...

It looks like Our President may still Pardon Libby eventually.
 
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> And just what crime was anyone charged with that Clinton was covering up? Did "people like yourself" show anything but elation about that? </end quote></div>
And what exactly were the repercussions for Clinton in lying under oath about a crime that never occurred.

The Clinton deflection did not answer ProfJohn's post...we have yet to witness charges for the actual Plame leak...just charges of lying associated with the investigation of said leak.

If this were such a cut and dry case, all the lying in the world wouldn't cover up the truth...but this case is ambiguous at best, but the media picked up on it, and Democrats starting foaming at the mouth hoping that Plame would be Bush's Watergate.

But it didn't turn out that way.



 
Wall Street Journal
Sums up what a lot of us are thinking.

"President Bush's commutation late yesterday afternoon of the prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby will at least spare his former aide from 2 1/2 years in prison. But by failing to issue a full pardon, Mr. Bush is evading responsibility for the role his Administration played in letting the Plame affair build into fiasco and, ultimately, this personal tragedy.

Mr. Libby will have to pay a fine of $250,000 and serve two years probation. This reflects the leniency that was previously recommended by the federal probation office but was rejected by Judge Reggie Walton in his vindictive sentence.

These columns have had cause to defend the Bush Presidency from what we've seen as often meritless or exaggerated partisan attacks, notably over national security and the Iraq war. This, however, will stand as a dark moment in this Administration's history. Joe Wilson's original, false accusation about pre-war intelligence metastasized into the issue of who "outed" his wife, Valerie Plame, as an intelligence officer. As the event unfolded, it fell to Mr. Libby to defend the Administration against Mr. Wilson's original charge, with little public assistance or support from the likes of Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell or Stephen Hadley.

In no small part because of these profiles in non-courage, it was Mr. Libby who found himself caught up in prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's hunt for the Plame leaker, which he and his masters at Justice knew from Day One to be State Department official Richard Armitage. As Mr. Fitzgerald's obsessive exercise ground forward, Mr. Libby got caught in a perjury net that we continue to believe trapped an innocent man who lost track of what he said, when he said it, and to whom.

Mr. Bush's commutation statement yesterday is another profile in non-courage. He describes the case for and against the Libby sentence with an antiseptic neutrality that would lead one to conclude that somehow the whole event was merely the result of Mr. Libby gone bad as a solo operator. Here is how Mr. Bush addressed it in his statement yesterday, which may now stand as history's take-away from the Libby trial:
"My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. . . . The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting."

Mr. Libby deserved better from the President whose policies he tried to defend when others were running for cover. The consequences for the reputation of his Administration will also be long-lasting. "
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Phokus
You know Genx, you could make your case without lying and regurgitating false GOP talking points.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

"Plame was ?covert? agent at time of name leak
Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment"</end quote></div>
Phokus there are a lot of question about the ?covert? status thing. Had they tried to charge anyone with leaking her name I doubt they could have gotten a conviction due to all the questions around her status.

If it was such an open and closed case that she was covert then how come Armitage was not charged with a crime for leaking her name in the first place?
How come Libby was not charged with that crime either?

Libby was sentenced to jail for 30 months for lying about a ?crime? that no one was charged with. That is why people like myself have a problem with this case.
Click to expand...

Either you're dense, or just deflecting and dodging again. I don't know how many times the appropriate statute has been explained in this forum, but if it's been done once, it's been done a thousand times.


About her status:
1. CIA asked for the investigation because they considered her covert
2. DCI Hayden has said she was covert

Leaving that question up to those who would know best seems like the right thing to do.

About the law:
1. You have to be someone cleared to the info and knowingly divulge the info to someone that you know isn't allowed access to it.
2. Armitage wasn't the former, he received from someone else (either Scooter or Rove)
3. Scooter couldn't remember where he got it from. Insisted it was Russert, when it couldn't have been due to numerous (9?) inconsistencies in his timeline.
4. Since Scooter couldn't fess up, we don't know who the original leaker was.

Now that you've been told for the 298343209th time, please quit repeating the same nauseating talking points.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
>Originally posted by: Phokus
You know Genx, you could make your case without lying and regurgitating false GOP talking points.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

"Plame was ?covert? agent at time of name leak
Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment"
Click to expand...
Phokus there are a lot of question about the ?covert? status thing. Had they tried to charge anyone with leaking her name I doubt they could have gotten a conviction due to all the questions around her status.
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO! I take it that's the new propaganda point for the BushCo shills, that even though all of your previous claims were eventually shot down*, you're now going to pretend there are "questions" in the minds or you and your ilk, and you speculate they probably couldn't have gotten a conviction? So hey, it's all OK, no harm, let's move on to really important issues like John Edwards' hair, huh? What a pathetic bunch.

*(Plame wasn't really an agent -- well, she wasn't really a covert agent -- well she hadn't left the U.S. in the last five years -- well everyone in D.C. knew it already -- well ... look, what's that over there? (runs away) :roll: )


If it was such an open and closed case that she was covert then how come Armitage was not charged with a crime for leaking her name in the first place?
Click to expand...
What was the answer the last 10 times you floated this duhversion? Oh that's right, you don't know because you keep running away rather than face the fact that your propaganda points have been refuted over and over.


How come Libby was not charged with that crime either?
Click to expand...
Good question. Since he obstructed the investigation by lying under oath, maybe we need to try a little torture ... err .. aggressive interrogation. You guys are all in favor of that, right? National interest and all, right?


Libby was sentenced to jail for 30 months for lying about a ?crime? that no one was charged with. That is why people like myself have a problem with this case.
Click to expand...
Wrong. People like you have a problem with this because you're partisan shills who will say anything to deflect criticisim of your side. I swear I could write a perl script to replace you in only a couple of hours. Put in some boilerplate verbage, add text lookups for maybe three websites (GOP, National Review, and Free Republic), and voila, BotJohn is ready to shill.

Here, if you haven't run away again already, repeat after me:

Libby was convicted for lying about a very real and potentially serious crime affecting national security, and for obstructing the investigation of that crime..
Libby was convicted for lying about a very real and potentially serious crime affecting national security, and for obstructing the investigation of that crime..
Libby was convicted for lying about a very real and potentially serious crime affecting national security, and for obstructing the investigation of that crime..
Libby was convicted for lying about a very real and potentially serious crime affecting national security, and for obstructing the investigation of that crime..
Libby was convicted for lying about a very real and potentially serious crime affecting national security, and for obstructing the investigation of that crime..
Libby was convicted for lying about a very real and potentially serious crime affecting national security, and for obstructing the investigation of that crime..
Libby was convicted for lying about a very real and potentially serious crime affecting national security, and for obstructing the investigation of that crime..

Got it yet?
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
And just what crime was anyone charged with that Clinton was covering up? Did "people like yourself" show anything but elation about that?
Click to expand...
Clinton was being sued in a civil case. He lied under oath in order to avoid losing that case. He denied Paula Jones her rights because he did not want to admit to having an affair with a 20 year old intern, and yet the left still holds him up as some kind of hero.
Beyond lying under oath Clinton also encouraged Monica to lie under oath and he submitted a knowingly false affidavit.
He also went on national TV and lied to the American people.

Compare all the above to Libby.

BTW bringing up Clinton does not excuse Libby, it only points out the hypocrisy of those on the left.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
And just what crime was anyone charged with that Clinton was covering up? Did "people like yourself" show anything but elation about that?</end quote></div>
Clinton was being sued in a civil case. He lied under oath in order to avoid losing that case. He denied Paula Jones her rights because he did not want to admit to having an affair with a 20 year old intern, and yet the left still holds him up as some kind of hero.
Beyond lying under oath Clinton also encouraged Monica to lie under oath and he submitted a knowingly false affidavit.
He also went on national TV and lied to the American people.

Compare all the above to Libby.

BTW bringing up Clinton does not excuse Libby, it only points out the hypocrisy of those on the left.
Click to expand...

Lying about public policy and lying about your personal life are two very different things. Every member of this administration has lied to the American public - about important policy issues.

You cannot compare the two.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. Most people don't seem to really get it, at all. Libby's sentence was commuted for one reason only- he couldn't be allowed to roll over, tell the truth in return for leniency from the court. G Gordon Liddy he's not, and nobody expected that he would be. Honest disclosure on his part would have been much more damaging than this, likely implicating Cheney, Rove and even Bush himself in a conspiracy to smear Wilson.

Take a look at this statement in a new light-

?If there?s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.?

It's what Bush said Sept 30, 2003, and it doesn't mean what anybody thought it did, at all.

Final score in this round: Bush Clan- 1, ROTW- 0. The price of victory is clearly higher than anticipated, but it beats losing. Just the way it is.
Click to expand...

He took care of him/them alright. Just like it was his own ass..... oh, it was, wasn't it.

Just another example of what lying, corrupt, bottom feeders the Bush/Cheney administration is composed of and anybody who still supports them are nothing but bottom feeding scum also. 😛
 
I]Originally posted by: ProfJohn[/i]


BTW bringing up Clinton does not excuse Libby, it only points out the hypocrisy of those on the left.
Click to expand...

ROFLMFAO! It certainly points out the hypocrisy, but not the hypocrisy of the left.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Phokus
You know Genx, you could make your case without lying and regurgitating false GOP talking points.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

"Plame was ?covert? agent at time of name leak
Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment"</end quote></div>
Phokus there are a lot of question about the ?covert? status thing. Had they tried to charge anyone with leaking her name I doubt they could have gotten a conviction due to all the questions around her status.

If it was such an open and closed case that she was covert then how come Armitage was not charged with a crime for leaking her name in the first place?
How come Libby was not charged with that crime either?

Libby was sentenced to jail for 30 months for lying about a ?crime? that no one was charged with. That is why people like myself have a problem with this case.
Click to expand...

Either Plame was covert or not, there's no inbetween. Her employment records show she was covert and the CIA backs her up on this. Unless you believe the CIA has been infiltrated by the DNC spies and trying to destroy all things Republican, you cannot seriously debate that Plame was not covert. As for Armitage, i would imagine they would have had to prove that Armitage knew of Plame's covert status which would have been more difficult. Also, you seem to have a hard time wrapping your head around the fact that Libby lied to investigators, obstructed justice and perjured himself in front of a grand jury.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ummm we knew the original leaker right from the start?
Click to expand...
Yep, Dick Cheney, and Scooter is being rewarded for protecting him. Scooter was convicted for lying and obstructing the investgation into the treasonous betrayal of a covert agent (and her cover company) in a self-proclaimed "time of war". Had someone on the left done this, you would be screeching for his hanging. Since it's your team, however, you twist and contort and outright lie to deflect the truth, flinging one lame excuse after another to protect your administration from accountability.

As I've pointed out directly to you before, and as you have dodged again and again, Armitage was only one of the TWO people who exposed Plame to Novak. What Fitzgerald was never able to prove is who exposed Plame to Armitage and Libby. Cheney is the obvious suspect, but thanks to Scooter's lying, we may never know for sure.

If you cared at all for America you would be outraged. Instead, you and the other BushCo shills have been out in force over the last 12 hours, catapulting the propaganda on every media outlet available, trying to divert attention from the real crime by lying about Armitage. You are as amoral as Bush himself.
Click to expand...
Fitzgerald didnt have a case if it couldnt get a grand jury to indict. You dont need a lot of evidence to do so and the defense doesnt get a chance to defend itself. Grand jurys are simply the prosecutor laying out the groundwork for a case in front of a jury to indict people for trial. If he couldnt convince a grand jury, your wild eyed theory about covert ops being outed are a figment of your imagination. Hell, even the author of the bill designed to protect covert ops admitted so much.

And what is there to lie about Armitage? He was the source for the leak. Why isnt he indicted for outing a covert op? Oh, that is right, she wasnt covert and hadnt been in the previous 5 years.
Click to expand...
(Pssst. You might want to get the new set of talking points. Those old ones have all been refuted. Spread the word.)

 
Intersting quote from GWB when he was governer of Texas:

"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own," - George W. Bush on why he signed death warrants for 152 inmates as governor of Texas.
 
Originally posted by: Phokus
Intersting quote from GWB when he was governer of Texas:

"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own," - George W. Bush on why he signed death warrants for 152 inmates as governor of Texas.
Click to expand...

He also executed the first woman, despite pleas from the Pope. FWIW.

Apparently, he is taking no options off the table with regards to a full pardon. Guess we'll see how quick on the draw he is after Libby's appeal is laughed out of court.
 
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Either you're dense, or just deflecting and dodging again. I don't know how many times the appropriate statute has been explained in this forum, but if it's been done once, it's been done a thousand times.

About her status:
1. CIA asked for the investigation because they considered her covert
2. DCI Hayden has said she was covert

Leaving that question up to those who would know best seems like the right thing to do.

About the law:
1. You have to be someone cleared to the info and knowingly divulge the info to someone that you know isn't allowed access to it.
2. Armitage wasn't the former, he received from someone else (either Scooter or Rove)
3. Scooter couldn't remember where he got it from. Insisted it was Russert, when it couldn't have been due to numerous (9?) inconsistencies in his timeline.
4. Since Scooter couldn't fess up, we don't know who the original leaker was.

Now that you've been told for the 298343209th time, please quit repeating the same nauseating talking points.
Click to expand...
If it is so clean cut how come no one was charged with the crime of leaking her name?

Richard Armitage is the original leaker, everyone admits to that, including Armitage.
Armitage learned this information because he had access to classified documents that had her name in them.
CBS News Link
""At the end of a wide-ranging interview he asked me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?' I said I didn't know, but that she worked out at the agency," Armitage says.

Armitage says he told Novak because it was "just an offhand question." "I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had," he says.

Armitage adds that while the document was classified, "it doesn't mean that every sentence in the document is classified.

"I had never seen a covered agent's name in any memo in, I think, 28 years of government," he says.

He adds that he thinks he referred to Wilson's wife as such, or possibly as "Mrs. Wilson." He never referred to her as Valerie Plame, he adds.

"I didn't know the woman's name was Plame. I didn't know she was an operative," he says. "

He learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA not from some other source, but from this document. It was included in the document as 'background information.' There was NO conspiracy to smear Joe Wilson. There has never been one bit of evidence to suggest that there was a conspiracy.

Fitz knew from day one that Armitage was THE leaker and yet he spent two years on the case.
 
Originally posted by: Phokus
Intersting quote from GWB when he was governer of Texas:

"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own," - George W. Bush on why he signed death warrants for 152 inmates as governor of Texas.
Click to expand...

It all depends on whose bull is being gored, doesn't it. What a bunch of phoney, hypocritical bastages we have running this country. I hope they stirred this pot enough to get the flames going again and it burns them.

We need a law that pardons/commute of sentencing isn't allowed in cases involving people in the current administration. Kind of like not being able to win the Grand Prize if your connected with the company giving the prize away.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
And just what crime was anyone charged with that Clinton was covering up? Did "people like yourself" show anything but elation about that?</end quote></div>
Clinton was being sued in a civil case. He lied under oath in order to avoid losing that case. He denied Paula Jones her rights because he did not want to admit to having an affair with a 20 year old intern, and yet the left still holds him up as some kind of hero.
Beyond lying under oath Clinton also encouraged Monica to lie under oath and he submitted a knowingly false affidavit.
He also went on national TV and lied to the American people.

Compare all the above to Libby.

BTW bringing up Clinton does not excuse Libby, it only points out the hypocrisy of those on the left.
Click to expand...

And i'm sure you forgot that Clinton settled the matter with the independent counsel, where lying libby is still claiming to be not guilty.
 
Originally posted by: Phokus
Intersting quote from GWB when he was governer of Texas:

"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own," - George W. Bush on why he signed death warrants for 152 inmates as governor of Texas.
Click to expand...
Ummm he didn?t replace the verdict of the jury; he replaced the punishment of a judge.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Either you're dense, or just deflecting and dodging again. I don't know how many times the appropriate statute has been explained in this forum, but if it's been done once, it's been done a thousand times.

About her status:
1. CIA asked for the investigation because they considered her covert
2. DCI Hayden has said she was covert

Leaving that question up to those who would know best seems like the right thing to do.

About the law:
1. You have to be someone cleared to the info and knowingly divulge the info to someone that you know isn't allowed access to it.
2. Armitage wasn't the former, he received from someone else (either Scooter or Rove)
3. Scooter couldn't remember where he got it from. Insisted it was Russert, when it couldn't have been due to numerous (9?) inconsistencies in his timeline.
4. Since Scooter couldn't fess up, we don't know who the original leaker was.

Now that you've been told for the 298343209th time, please quit repeating the same nauseating talking points.
Click to expand...
If it is so clean cut how come no one was charged with the crime of leaking her name?

Richard Armitage is the original leaker, everyone admits to that, including Armitage.
Armitage learned this information because he had access to classified documents that had her name in them.
CBS News Link
""At the end of a wide-ranging interview he asked me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?' I said I didn't know, but that she worked out at the agency," Armitage says.

Armitage says he told Novak because it was "just an offhand question." "I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had," he says.

Armitage adds that while the document was classified, "it doesn't mean that every sentence in the document is classified.

"I had never seen a covered agent's name in any memo in, I think, 28 years of government," he says.

He adds that he thinks he referred to Wilson's wife as such, or possibly as "Mrs. Wilson." He never referred to her as Valerie Plame, he adds.

"I didn't know the woman's name was Plame. I didn't know she was an operative," he says. "

He learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA not from some other source, but from this document. It was included in the document as 'background information.' There was NO conspiracy to smear Joe Wilson. There has never been one bit of evidence to suggest that there was a conspiracy.

Fitz knew from day one that Armitage was THE leaker and yet he spent two years on the case.
Click to expand...
I see you're going to continue spamming your lies, even after they've been refuted in this very thread. Here, let's try it again:

"Yep, Dick Cheney [ is THE leaker ], and Scooter is being rewarded for protecting him. Scooter was convicted for lying and obstructing the investgation into the treasonous betrayal of a covert agent (and her cover company) in a self-proclaimed "time of war". Had someone on the left done this, you would be screeching for his hanging. Since it's your team, however, you twist and contort and outright lie to deflect the truth, flinging one lame excuse after another to protect your administration from accountability.

"As I've pointed out directly to you before, and as you have dodged again and again, Armitage was only one of the TWO people who exposed Plame to Novak. What Fitzgerald was never able to prove is who exposed Plame to Armitage and Libby. Cheney is the obvious suspect, but thanks to Scooter's lying, we may never know for sure.

"If you cared at all for America you would be outraged. Instead, you and the other BushCo shills have been out in force over the last 12 hours, catapulting the propaganda on every media outlet available, trying to divert attention from the real crime by lying about Armitage. You are as amoral as Bush himself."


Run, BotJohn, run.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top