Gonzo testifies!

[loosecannon]

But first he leaks his testimony to the press and pulls a Libby:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070415/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors_16


Gonzales says memory of firings hazy

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, fighting to save his job, said in prepared Senate testimony Sunday he has "nothing to hide" in the firings of eight federal prosecutors but claimed a hazy memory about his involvement in them.

In his 25-page statement, Gonzales apologized for embarrassing the eight U.S. attorneys and their families by letting their ousters erupt into a political firestorm that has engulfed the Justice Department since January. He maintained the firings were not improper, but said he remembers having only an indirect role in the plans beyond approving them.

"I have nothing to hide, and I am committed to assuring the Congress and the American public that nothing improper occurred here," Gonzales said in prepared testimony released before he appears Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The panel, which oversees the Justice Department, is investigating whether the firings were politically motivated.

"I am sorry for my missteps that have helped to fuel the controversy," he said.

Gonzales added: "In hindsight, I would have handled this differently. ...

In his written testimony, Gonzales claimed he vaguely remembers discussions about the firings, including being asked about at least two possible replacements for vacant U.S. attorney jobs. He also said he recalled "two specific instances" when he was told that then-White House counsel Harriet Miers was seeking updates of the Justice Department's prosecutor evaluations.

But Gonzales indicated he could not definitively say whether he was involved in decisions on selecting which prosecutors would be targeted. The few, brief updates on the firings he received from Kyle Sampson, his former chief of staff, "focused primarily on the review process itself," Gonzales said.

"During those updates, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign," Gonzales said.

Sampson left the Justice Department over the controversy March 12. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 29 that he remembered discussions with Gonzales regarding "this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign."

Sampson was being interviewed again Sunday by congressional investigators, said his attorney Brad Berenson.

If the pattern fits.....

[Hugh Lincoln]

This D. Kyle Sampson...

Man, for all that power at the DOJ, this guy to me looks like he'd have a lot of trouble getting laid.

[CockySOB]

How much longer before Alberto Gonzales decides to "spend more time with his family?" I'm thinking less than a month, but who knows....

[Kathianne]

How much longer before Alberto Gonzales decides to "spend more time with his family?" I'm thinking less than a month, but who knows....

Not soon enough.

[Samantha]

Not soon enough.We agree!

[Kathianne]

We agree!

True, but probably for different reasons.

[Dilloduck]

Not soon enough.

and the winner of the next " guy to be used to attack Bush " award will be given to --------------drum roll please ---------??????

[Kathianne]

and the winner of the next " guy to be used to attack Bush " award will be given to --------------drum roll please ---------??????

I can't help it if Bush has had a tendency to appoint incompetent minorities.

[glockmail]

But first he leaks his testimony to the press and pulls a Libby:


.....

So does "pulling a Libby" mean that you are innocent of the original charges? :laugh2:

[Samantha]

True, but probably for different reasons.I want him gone because when the government tries to politicize the courts, America loses it's freedom. We need the court system to be independant of the government. I don't want to live in a Soviet/Chinese/Iran style country where the government controls the lawyers and the judges. I want a free society. This administration is trying to change it to a unitary executive government. Control the courts, take power from the congress. We have 3 equal branches and the Bush admin wants the executive branch to have more power than the rest.


But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.

John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775

Why do you want Gonzales gone?

[Samantha]

So does "pulling a Libby" mean that you are innocent of the original charges? :laugh2:There were no original charges. He was found guilty of the only crimes he was charged with. Perjury, obstruction of justice.

[glockmail]

There were no original charges. He was found guilty of the only crimes he was charged with. Perjury, obstruction of justice. He was found guilty of poor memory. :pee:

[Samantha]

I can't help it if Bush has had a tendency to appoint incompetent minorities.Who are the other incompetent minorities? I was under the impression he just surrounded himself with incompetent cronies, Rummy, Brownie, Gonzo, Libby, etc....

[Samantha]

He was found guilty of poor memory. :pee:Not quite, but I guess if you are an author of fiction or re-writing history, you could put it that way.

[loosecannon]

So does "pulling a Libby" mean that you are innocent of the original charges? :laugh2:

NO, but it does imply he is probably guilty of obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI.

Wanna take wagers?

[loosecannon]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/04/13/pat_robertson/

Say it loud: I'm elite and proud! The right-wing crusade to demonize elites has paid off. Now the country's run by incompetents who make mediocrity a job requirement and recruit from Pat Robertson's law school. New rule: Now that liberals have taken back the word liberal, they also have to take back the word "elite." By now you've heard the constant right-wing attacks on the "elite," or as it's otherwise known, "hating." They've had it up to their red necks with the "elite media." The "liberal elite." Who may or may not be part of the "Washington elite." A subset of the "East Coast elite." Which is influenced by "the Hollywood elite." So basically, unless you're a shitkicker from Kansas, you're with the terrorists. If you played a drinking game in which you did a shot every time Rush Limbaugh attacked someone for being "elite" you'd almost be as wasted as Rush Limbaugh.

I don't get it: In other fields -- outside of government -- elite is a good thing, like an elite fighting force. Tiger Woods is an elite golfer. If I need brain surgery, I'd like an elite doctor. But in politics, elite is bad -- the elite aren't down-to-earth and accessible like you and me and President Shit-for-Brains. But when the anti-elite crowd demonizes the elite, what they're actually doing is embracing incompetence. Now, I know what you're thinking: That doesn't sound like our president -- ignoring intelligence.

You know how whenever there's a major Bush administration scandal it always traces back to some incompetent political hack appointment and you think to yourself, "Where are they getting these screw-ups from?" Well, now we know: from Pat Robertson. I wish I were kidding, but I'm not. Take Monica Goodling, who before she resigned last week because of the U.S. attorneys scandal, was the third most powerful official in the Justice Department of the United States. Thirty-three, and though she had never even worked as a prosecutor, she was tasked with overseeing the job performance of all 95 U.S. attorneys. How do you get to be such a top dog at 33? By acing Harvard, or winning scholarship prizes? No, Goodling did her undergraduate work at Messiah College -- home of the "Fighting Christies," who wait-listed me, the bastards -- and then went on to attend Pat Robertson's law school.

I'm not kidding, Pat Robertson, the man who said gay people at DisneyWorld would cause "earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor," has a law school. It's called Regent. Regent University School of Law, and it shares a campus with Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network studios. It's the first time ever that a TV network spun off a law school. And that's all America needs -- more Christians and more lawyers. You see, years ago Pat became concerned that our legal system was coddling criminals, forgiving them instead of meting out that Old Testament "eye for an eye" justice Jesus Christ never shuts up about. So Pat did what any red-blooded, Hindu-hating, gay-baiting, glue-sniffing Christian would do: He started his own law school. And what kid wouldn't want to attend? It's three years and you only have to read one book. The school says its mission is to create an army of evangelical lawyers, integrating the Bible and public policy, and producing graduates that provide "Christian leadership to change the world." Presumably from round back to flat.

U.S. News and World Report, which does the definitive ranking of colleges, lists Regent as a tier-four school, which is the lowest score it gives. It's not a hard school to get into. You have to renounce Satan and draw a pirate on a matchbook. This is for the people who couldn't get into the University of Phoenix.

But there's more! As there inevitably is with the Bush administration. Turns out she's not the only one. Since 2001, 150 graduates of Regent University have been hired by the Bush administration. And people wonder why things are so screwed up. Hell, we probably invaded Iraq because one of these clowns read the map wrong. Forget religion for a second, we're talking about a top Justice Department official who went to a college founded by a TV host. Would you send your daughter to Maury Povich University? And if you did, would you expect her to get a job at the White House? I'd be surprised if she got a job on the "Maury" show. And then it hit me: This is why Bush scandals never catch on with the public -- they're all evangelicals of course, and nobody is having sex.

So there you have it: It turns out that the Justice Department is entirely staffed with Jesus freaks from a televangelist diploma mill in Virginia Beach. Most of them young women with very little knowledge of the law, but a very strong sense of doing what they're told. Like the Manson family, but with cleaner hair. In 200 years we've gone from "We the people" to "Up with people." From the best and brightest to dumb and dumber. And, come on, America is a big, well-known, first-rate country, and when we're looking for people to help run it, we should aim higher than the girl who answers the phone at the fake abortion clinic. It's not just that this president has surrounded himself with a Texas echo chamber of war criminals and religious fanatics. It's that they're sooooo mediocre. This is America. We should be getting robbed and fucked over by the best.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., asked at a hearing, "Should we be concerned with the experience level of the people who are making these highly significant decisions?" But in the Bush administration experience doesn't matter. All that matters is loyalty to Bush and Jesus, in that order. And where better to find people dumb enough to believe in George W. Bush than Pat Robertson's law school. The problem here in America isn't that the country is being run by elites. It's that it's being run by a bunch of hayseeds. And by the way, the lawyer Monica Goodling just hired to keep her ass out of jail went to a real law school.

[Kathianne]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/04/13/pat_robertson/

Say it loud: I'm elite and proud! The right-wing crusade to demonize elites has paid off. Now the country's run by incompetents who make mediocrity a job requirement and recruit from Pat Robertson's law school. New rule: Now that liberals have taken back the word liberal, they also have to take back the word "elite." By now you've heard the constant right-wing attacks on the "elite," or as it's otherwise known, "hating." They've had it up to their red necks with the "elite media." The "liberal elite." Who may or may not be part of the "Washington elite." A subset of the "East Coast elite." Which is influenced by "the Hollywood elite." So basically, unless you're a shitkicker from Kansas, you're with the terrorists. If you played a drinking game in which you did a shot every time Rush Limbaugh attacked someone for being "elite" you'd almost be as wasted as Rush Limbaugh.

I don't get it: In other fields -- outside of government -- elite is a good thing, like an elite fighting force. Tiger Woods is an elite golfer. If I need brain surgery, I'd like an elite doctor. But in politics, elite is bad -- the elite aren't down-to-earth and accessible like you and me and President Shit-for-Brains. But when the anti-elite crowd demonizes the elite, what they're actually doing is embracing incompetence. Now, I know what you're thinking: That doesn't sound like our president -- ignoring intelligence.

You know how whenever there's a major Bush administration scandal it always traces back to some incompetent political hack appointment and you think to yourself, "Where are they getting these screw-ups from?" Well, now we know: from Pat Robertson. I wish I were kidding, but I'm not. Take Monica Goodling, who before she resigned last week because of the U.S. attorneys scandal, was the third most powerful official in the Justice Department of the United States. Thirty-three, and though she had never even worked as a prosecutor, she was tasked with overseeing the job performance of all 95 U.S. attorneys. How do you get to be such a top dog at 33? By acing Harvard, or winning scholarship prizes? No, Goodling did her undergraduate work at Messiah College -- home of the "Fighting Christies," who wait-listed me, the bastards -- and then went on to attend Pat Robertson's law school.

I'm not kidding, Pat Robertson, the man who said gay people at DisneyWorld would cause "earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor," has a law school. It's called Regent. Regent University School of Law, and it shares a campus with Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network studios. It's the first time ever that a TV network spun off a law school. And that's all America needs -- more Christians and more lawyers. You see, years ago Pat became concerned that our legal system was coddling criminals, forgiving them instead of meting out that Old Testament "eye for an eye" justice Jesus Christ never shuts up about. So Pat did what any red-blooded, Hindu-hating, gay-baiting, glue-sniffing Christian would do: He started his own law school. And what kid wouldn't want to attend? It's three years and you only have to read one book. The school says its mission is to create an army of evangelical lawyers, integrating the Bible and public policy, and producing graduates that provide "Christian leadership to change the world." Presumably from round back to flat.

U.S. News and World Report, which does the definitive ranking of colleges, lists Regent as a tier-four school, which is the lowest score it gives. It's not a hard school to get into. You have to renounce Satan and draw a pirate on a matchbook. This is for the people who couldn't get into the University of Phoenix.

But there's more! As there inevitably is with the Bush administration. Turns out she's not the only one. Since 2001, 150 graduates of Regent University have been hired by the Bush administration. And people wonder why things are so screwed up. Hell, we probably invaded Iraq because one of these clowns read the map wrong. Forget religion for a second, we're talking about a top Justice Department official who went to a college founded by a TV host. Would you send your daughter to Maury Povich University? And if you did, would you expect her to get a job at the White House? I'd be surprised if she got a job on the "Maury" show. And then it hit me: This is why Bush scandals never catch on with the public -- they're all evangelicals of course, and nobody is having sex.

So there you have it: It turns out that the Justice Department is entirely staffed with Jesus freaks from a televangelist diploma mill in Virginia Beach. Most of them young women with very little knowledge of the law, but a very strong sense of doing what they're told. Like the Manson family, but with cleaner hair. In 200 years we've gone from "We the people" to "Up with people." From the best and brightest to dumb and dumber. And, come on, America is a big, well-known, first-rate country, and when we're looking for people to help run it, we should aim higher than the girl who answers the phone at the fake abortion clinic. It's not just that this president has surrounded himself with a Texas echo chamber of war criminals and religious fanatics. It's that they're sooooo mediocre. This is America. We should be getting robbed and fucked over by the best.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., asked at a hearing, "Should we be concerned with the experience level of the people who are making these highly significant decisions?" But in the Bush administration experience doesn't matter. All that matters is loyalty to Bush and Jesus, in that order. And where better to find people dumb enough to believe in George W. Bush than Pat Robertson's law school. The problem here in America isn't that the country is being run by elites. It's that it's being run by a bunch of hayseeds. And by the way, the lawyer Monica Goodling just hired to keep her ass out of jail went to a real law school.

Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, not too mention any relations of Billy Graham do not speak for me. Does Sharpton speak for you? Jesse? Imus?

[loosecannon]

Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, not too mention any relations of Billy Graham do not speak for me. Does Sharpton speak for you? Jesse? Imus?


You are personalizing. This is about humor and about the Bush admin and justice dept.

It isn't a slam on you.

[glockmail]

Not quite, but I guess if you are an author of fiction or re-writing history, you could put it that way. So basically he was found guilty of not saying exactly the same thing in testimony where he was not charged. In other words, railroaded with a faulty memory. With this standard, all of us would be going to the same jail.

[glockmail]

NO, but it does imply he is probably guilty of obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI.

Wanna take wagers? Bet on what- your faulty memory, mine or his?

[Gunny]

I think I actually found something I agree with Glock on. This IS America ...since when was presumption of guilt the default position?

Few people that I know of have near-perfect recall, and NONE are infallable. Then there's the fact that memory is based on perception, not necessarily actual event.

The Dem's seem to have this zero-defect mentality thing down pat. Too bad they don't hold themselves to the same standard.

[Samantha]

It begins tomorrow April 17. It will be replayed at night after work on C-Span. Gonzales released his opening statement today.

http://www.c-span.org/pdf/Attorney%20General%20Gonzales%20Written%20Statemen t.pdf

He claims the attorneys were not fired for political reasons but there is a lot of evidence that shows they were.

Here's one example, this attorney in Michigan was fired so Gonzales's aid could replace her.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070413/NEWS06/70413043/0/NEWS03

There's another one in Little Rock Arkansas that was to be replaced by a Karl Rove aid. Hmmm, dirty tricks in the works targeting Hillary's Presidential campaign?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-06-prosecutor-rove-aide_x.htm

Carol Lamm in San Diego was fired and the excuse was that she didn't prosecute enough immigration cases. She actually She also tried Randy Duke Cunningham, a republican, for corruption. She may have been ready to target the White House in that case as well...

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/19/carol-lam-white-house/

And speaking of corruption, in New Mexico the attorney that was fired, Iglesias, was called on the phone by two Republican Senators urging him to make public a sealed indictment against a Democrat right before the election in 2006. He refused, it's unethical for the Senators to do that, and then he was fired.

http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/node/2232

That's just 4 out of the 8 that I've heard about. I think our Senators might be asking about these things tomorrow. It will be interesting to watch.

[Gaffer]

Sounds like most of them were more nepotism than corruption. It will remain to be seen I guess. It's important to note who they were replaced with.

[Samantha]

Sounds like most of them were more nepotism than corruption. It will remain to be seen I guess. It's important to note who they were replaced with.Yes, it's important to find out who they were replaced with to know if they were fired for political reasons.

It's already suspect because Kyle Sampson, Gonzo's cheif of staff, said in emails that he judged them by whether they were loyal Bushies. And then he contradicted Gonzales who said he didn't have anything to do with it, when he testified that Gonzo was present at the discussions of the firings.

Tomorrow we'll find out more....

[glockmail]

I think I actually found something I agree with Glock on. This IS America ...since when was presumption of guilt the default position?
..... When you are a Republican, of course!

:pee:

[Samantha]

........ This IS America ...since when was presumption of guilt the default position?..........


When you are a Republican, of course!

When in court, the judge and jury presume you innocent until proven guilty.

When discussing crime in a political discussion message board, there is no such law. You just discuss the evidence and the stories and the articles and you give your opinion on guilt or innocence.

[glockmail]

When in court, the judge and jury presume you innocent until proven guilty.

When discussing crime in a political discussion message board, there is no such law. You just discuss the evidence and the stories and the articles and you give your opinion on guilt or innocence.
Libby was innocent, but then he went to court and then got guilty. You call that justice? You don't think there's partisanship in courtrooms? :poke:

[Samantha]

Libby was innocent, but then he went to court and then got guilty. You call that justice? You don't think there's partisanship in courtrooms?

That's the way it works. Innocent before proven guilty.

Libby committed perjury and obstructed justice when he lied to the grand jury about telling reporters that Valerie Plame was CIA.

I call that justice.

Libby lied. It was a cut and dry case.

[glockmail]

That's the way it works. Innocent before proven guilty.

Libby committed perjury and obstructed justice when he lied to the grand jury about telling reporters that Valerie Plame was CIA.

I call that justice.

Libby lied. It was a cut and dry case. She was not undercover. He simply erred in his testimony. Nothing he did before the Democrats made it into a huge issue was wrong in any way.

[Samantha]

She was not undercover.She was undercover within 5 years of the day she testified. Don't tell this board lies.

Read the transcript, it's all over the internet. I watched the whole thing.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/plame-covert-testimony/

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Plame_hearing_transcript_0316.html

[manu1959]

She was undercover within 5 years of the day she testified. Don't tell this board lies.

Read the transcript, it's all over the internet. I watched the whole thing.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/plame-covert-testimony/

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Plame_hearing_transcript_0316.html

that is her claim no?

if she really was undercover why were the charges dropped?

[Samantha]

that is her claim no?

if she really was undercover why were the charges dropped?The charges were not dropped. There never were charges. The law says you must know the person is a covert agent and leak their identity on purpose. It's nearly impossible to prove. Especially when one of the witnesses commits perjury and obstructs justice while the prosecutor is trying to gather evidence. That's why Libby's going to jail.

That is her claim, yes. And if she had lied under oath when she claimed it, I'm sure she would be facing perjury charges too. But she's not, because she didn't lie.

[Samantha]

Meanwhile back at the DOJ.....

More details about GOP Senator Pete Domenici are coming out.


Iglesias testified before the congressional committees that Domenici called him at home and asked if indictments were imminent in a public corruption investigation of Albuquerque's Metropolitan Courthouse construction. Iglesias told him indictments were not expected anytime soon.

This was right before the 2006 election. The investigation included A Democrat.


Iglesias testified that Domenici said, "I'm very sorry to hear that." And then hung up.
Iglesias said he felt "pressured" and "violated" by the telephone call but did not report it to Justice Department headquarters as required.

Domenici called Gonzales to get Iglesias fired. Gonzales said he serves at the pleasure of the President. So Domenici called Rove, and then he got a phone call with the President.

After that, Iglesias's name got put on the list of US attorneys to be fired.

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/special/554986nm04-15-07.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18141171/site/newsweek/

[manu1959]

Meanwhile back at the DOJ.....
More details about GOP Senator Pete Domenici are coming out.
This was right before the 2006 election. The investigation included A Democrat.
Domenici called Gonzales to get Iglesias fired. Gonzales said he serves at the pleasure of the President. So Domenici called Rove, and then he got a phone call with the President.
After that, Iglesias's name got put on the list of US attorneys to be fired.
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/special/554986nm04-15-07.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18141171/site/newsweek/

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/59794.html

hey look the investigation iglesias wouldn't chase resulted in a conviction.... or maybe i just can't read.....

[Samantha]

I don't see anything about Iglesias in that article. Where does it say something about Iglesias?

Can you read?

j/k ;)

[Samantha]

Here's another article.

Why I was Fired
by David C. Iglesias


When some of my fired colleagues — Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas; Paul Charlton of Phoenix; H. E. Cummins III of Little Rock, Ark.; Carol Lam of San Diego; and John McKay of Seattle — and I testified before Congress on March 6, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. Not only had we not been insulated from politics, we had apparently been singled out for political reasons. (Among the Justice Department’s released documents is one describing the office of Senator Domenici as being “happy as a clam” that I was fired.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html?ex=1332129600&en=a659cdbb5069538f&ei=5090&partner=span%20class=

[Dilloduck]

Here's another article.

Why I was Fired
by David C. Iglesias



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html?ex=1332129600&en=a659cdbb5069538f&ei=5090&partner=span%20class=

Who are you going after next? I'm afraid his won't lead to impeachment either. How is that 100 day promise coming long BTW ?

[loosecannon]

I think I actually found something I agree with Glock on. This IS America ...since when was presumption of guilt the default position?



And of course you are totally lying out your ass too.

Evidence, Pelosi's trip to Syria.

You convicted her of unethical acts even tho you can't even present an explanation and you have no facts.

Yet when it is a republican you suddenly discover American values.

Intellectually plasticity is an intellectual dishonesty.

Be coherent in your world view or admit that you don't really have one.

[Dilloduck]

Odd---they're postponing the Gonzales hearing from tomorrow until Thursday. I wonder why. Could it be maybe----POLITICAL !!! Oh the irony !!!

:laugh2:

[Samantha]

Who are you going after next? I'm afraid his won't lead to impeachment either. How is that 100 day promise coming long BTW ?Who am I going after? I don't go after anyone, I'm not a US attorney, I'm not a congresswoman. I'm just a citizen who is interested in politics. That 100 day promise has been made. All the bills were passed that were promised, Stem Cell Research, Minimum Wage, 9/11 Commission recommendations, etc...Bush has promised to veto most of them.


Odd---they're postponing the Gonzales hearing from tomorrow until Thursday. I wonder why. Could it be maybe----POLITICAL !!! Oh the irony !!!

:laugh2:It's because of the Virginia Tech shootings.

Do you find that funny?

:(

[glockmail]

She was undercover within 5 years of the day she testified. Don't tell this board lies.

Read the transcript, it's all over the internet. I watched the whole thing.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/plame-covert-testimony/

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Plame_hearing_transcript_0316.html

So she was undercover 5 years ago. She got "outed" what, two years ago. Cased closed.

[glockmail]

And of course you are totally lying out your ass too.

Evidence, Pelosi's trip to Syria.

You convicted her of unethical acts even tho you can't even present an explanation and you have no facts.

Yet when it is a republican you suddenly discover American values.

Intellectually plasticity is an intellectual dishonesty.

Be coherent in your world view or admit that you don't really have one.

I recall he made a slam dunk case, where only the President shall discuss policy with foreign dignitaries. That policy has Constitutional and SCOTUS precendent. Therfore Pelosi committed treason.

[Dilloduck]

[QUOTE=Samantha;40271]Who am I going after? I don't go after anyone, I'm not a US attorney, I'm not a congresswoman. I'm just a citizen who is interested in politics. That 100 day promise has been made. All the bills were passed that were promised, Stem Cell Research, Minimum Wage, 9/11 Commission recommendations, etc...Bush has promised to veto most of them.

WOW--that's what they call a promise ?? Impressive ! :laugh2:


It's because of the Virginia Tech shootings.

Do you find that funny?


It's also highly possible that the V Tech murder coverage would detract from thier show trial.

[loosecannon]

She was not undercover. He simply erred in his testimony. Nothing he did before the Democrats made it into a huge issue was wrong in any way.

This is an amazing display of denial.

He was convicted of lying by a Grand Jury, so pretending he merely forgot is legally determined to be false.

She was undercover, and said so before the Congress. The reason you may think that she wasn't is partially because she was prohibited until recently from speaking at all about here CLASSIFIED career.

Before the dems "made it a big deal" Libby was involved in outing a covert career proffessional whose job it was to track WMD.

Are you with US, or with the terrorists?

[loosecannon]

Who are you going after next? I'm afraid his won't lead to impeachment either. How is that 100 day promise coming long BTW ?

You must mean the 100 hour promise. But who really cares?

Hopefully Rove is next, then Bush.

Cheney will resign in ten seconds once you offer him a deal for immunity.

But there are still 150 Bush appointees from the 700 club law school to go after and the Abramoff investigation has dozens more lined up to indict.

What was your question again?

[lily]

Well let's see, the right has tried to deflect the topic by bringing up Pelosi, Libby, the 100 hour promise and God knows what else.

At first I was a little upset because is seemed that the prosecuters were fired for political rasons.......but if I'm not mistaken this hearing is about lying to Congress. If the Republicans don't give a shit because some Republican attorneys were fired.........

[loosecannon]

Well let's see, the right has tried to deflect the topic by bringing up Pelosi, Libby, the 100 hour promise and God knows what else.

At first I was a little upset because is seemed that the prosecuters were fired for political rasons.......but if I'm not mistaken this hearing is about lying to Congress. If the Republicans don't give a shit because some Republican attorneys were fired.........


Yeah Gonzo lied to Congress, but he didn't get a blowjob and he didn't go to Syria.

So Rightwingers will pretend it doesn't matter.

Until one of their own goes to Syria or stalks a page via text messaging and then they will say "that" doesn't matter.

Anybody left defending the BA is almost certainly a lying sack of shit.

They have no credibility left, are exposed as being dishonest and in denial.

It sucks to be a Bushbot. But we all knew it would come to that.

[manu1959]

I don't see anything about Iglesias in that article. Where does it say something about Iglesias?

Can you read?

j/k ;)

what is the date of the settelment (article)? the date iglesias was removed?

[Samantha]

So she was undercover 5 years ago. She got "outed" what, two years ago. Cased closed.She was undercover within 5 years of being outted. That means she was classified. Her identity was to remain secret. The 5 years is the gauge they use.

[Samantha]

what is the date of the settelment (article)? the date iglesias was removed?I don't understand what one has to do with the other.

[manu1959]

I don't understand what one has to do with the other.

well the article indicates there was coruption and a settlement on the 80 million project....iglesias seemd not to want to file charges....either he changed his mind or was fired and someone else filed charges...either way it looks like charges should have been filed....this one doesn't look political...at least not this case...maybe something else....but not this one

[Samantha]

what is the date of the settelment (article)? the date iglesias was removed?


well the article indicates there was coruption and a settlement on the 80 million project....iglesias seemd not to want to file charges....either he changed his mind or was fired and someone else filed charges...either way it looks like charges should have been filed....this one doesn't look political...at least not this case...maybe something else....but not this oneI don't see anything about Iglesias in that article. Do you have another one that talks about what you are saying?

[manu1959]

I don't see anything about Iglesias in that article. Do you have another one that talks about what you are saying?

sorry i don't, but that was kinda the point .... iglesias says he was fired for not filing charges ... turns out there was corruption and a settlement was reached....not by iglesias .... not buying he was claim he was fired for this reason.....

[Samantha]

sorry i don't, but that was kinda the point .... iglesias says he was fired for not filing charges ... turns out there was corruption and a settlement was reached....not by iglesias .... not buying he was claim he was fired for this reason.....How do you know Iglesias had anything to do with that case? That case has nothing to do with this issue, as far as I can tell.

[manu1959]

How do you know Iglesias had anything to do with that case? That case has nothing to do with this issue, as far as I can tell.

it was the coruption case he was being asked to investigate no?....shit did i get my cases mixed up?

i think no...this was in your post...Iglesias testified before the congressional committees that Domenici called him at home and asked if indictments were imminent in a public corruption investigation of Albuquerque's Metropolitan Courthouse construction. Iglesias told him indictments were not expected anytime soon.

[CockySOB]

That's the way it works. Innocent before proven guilty.

Libby committed perjury and obstructed justice when he lied to the grand jury about telling reporters that Valerie Plame was CIA.

I call that justice.

Libby lied. It was a cut and dry case.

Except for that little piece of information, I agree with you. The bold text is NOT a matter of legal fact though, no matter how much you or any other librull wants it to be.

[glockmail]

...
She was undercover, and said so before the Congress.... She lied then. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

She was undercover within 5 years of being outted. That means she was classified. Her identity was to remain secret. The 5 years is the gauge they use. So you admit that she was not undercover. Case closed. :laugh2:

[lily]

it was the coruption case he was being asked to investigate no?....shit did i get my cases mixed up?

i think no...this was in your post...Iglesias testified before the congressional committees that Domenici called him at home and asked if indictments were imminent in a public corruption investigation of Albuquerque's Metropolitan Courthouse construction. Iglesias told him indictments were not expected anytime soon.


I may be wrong on this..but wasn't that phone call illegal, thus prompting Domenici to get a lawyer for himself? I don't think it's legal for a Senator to call a prosecuter and asked who he has under sealed indictments.

[CockySOB]

I may be wrong on this..but wasn't that phone call illegal, thus prompting Domenici to get a lawyer for himself? I don't think it's legal for a Senator to call a prosecuter and asked who he has under sealed indictments.

Absolutely. Of course if anyone wishes to pursue that angle, perhaps we should also investigate Chuck Schumer's contact with Deputy Attorney General James Comey during the Plame investigation.

http://patterico.com/2007/03/19/more-on-the-fired-us-attorneys/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/schumers_amnesia.html

What's wrong for one, is wrong for all.

[lily]

Absolutely. Of course if anyone wishes to pursue that angle, perhaps we should also investigate Chuck Schumer's contact with Deputy Attorney General James Comey during the Plame investigation.

http://patterico.com/2007/03/19/more-on-the-fired-us-attorneys/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/schumers_amnesia.html

What's wrong for one, is wrong for all.

I'm not the lawyer here, but I don't see anything asking questions about sealed indictments. As I sit here typing I wish for the open and honest questions being asked with actual letters doing the asking and not "missing" and "erased" emails, or phone calls in the middle of the night. If Schumer was breaking any laws, then I strongly advise him to lawyer up and let the games begin.

I'd also interested to know if you have any links to Comey feeling pressured or loosing his job because he didn't perform as Schumer asked.

[Samantha]

it was the coruption case he was being asked to investigate no?....shit did i get my cases mixed up?

i think no...this was in your post...Iglesias testified before the congressional committees that Domenici called him at home and asked if indictments were imminent in a public corruption investigation of Albuquerque's Metropolitan Courthouse construction. Iglesias told him indictments were not expected anytime soon.I thought it was a case having to do with some Democrats and the indictment was sealed. The republican Senators of NM asked him to unseal the indictment before the election. He said no.

I don't think this is the same case.

[CockySOB]

I'm not the lawyer here, but I don't see anything asking questions about sealed indictments. As I sit here typing I wish for the open and honest questions being asked with actual letters doing the asking and not "missing" and "erased" emails, or phone calls in the middle of the night. If Schumer was breaking any laws, then I strongly advise him to lawyer up and let the games begin.

I'd also interested to know if you have any links to Comey feeling pressured or loosing his job because he didn't perform as Schumer asked.

The bold text is irrelevant here, no? We're talking about Domenici and Wilson improperly communicating with a DoJ official regarding investigations by Iglesias' office, and the parallel to an incident with Chuck Schumer who is leading the charge. Schumer's communication to Comey can most certainly be read as "applying pressure" (as can most of these type of communications), in this case pressuring Comey to provide information on an ongoing investigation.

[Samantha]

She lied then. :laugh2:If Plame lied under oath, there would be an indictment and she'd be awaiting trial. She didn't lie.


So you admit that she was not undercover. Case closed. :laugh2:No, you are ignorantly insisting she was not undercover, but since she was, according to all the facts, I admit she WAS a classified CIA agent who's identity was to be a secret.


I may be wrong on this..but wasn't that phone call illegal, thus prompting Domenici to get a lawyer for himself? I don't think it's legal for a Senator to call a prosecuter and asked who he has under sealed indictments.I think you're right.


I'm not the lawyer here, but I don't see anything asking questions about sealed indictments. As I sit here typing I wish for the open and honest questions being asked with actual letters doing the asking and not "missing" and "erased" emails, or phone calls in the middle of the night. If Schumer was breaking any laws, then I strongly advise him to lawyer up and let the games begin.

I'd also interested to know if you have any links to Comey feeling pressured or loosing his job because he didn't perform as Schumer asked.Good point.

I don't know anything about a Schumer incident, is there a thread about it?

[Samantha]

The bold text is irrelevant here, no? We're talking about Domenici and Wilson improperly communicating with a DoJ official regarding investigations by Iglesias' office, and the parallel to an incident with Chuck Schumer who is leading the charge. Schumer's communication to Comey can most certainly be read as "applying pressure" (as can most of these type of communications), in this case pressuring Comey to provide information on an ongoing investigation.Why don't you make a thread about this Schumer case, as we are not familiar with any of the details?

[lily]

The bold text is irrelevant here, no? We're talking about Domenici and Wilson improperly communicating with a DoJ official regarding investigations by Iglesias' office, and the parallel to an incident with Chuck Schumer who is leading the charge. Schumer's communication to Comey can most certainly be read as "applying pressure" (as can most of these type of communications), in this case pressuring Comey to provide information on an ongoing investigation.

Irrelevant how? Gonzales' main defense is I can't remember and oddly all the things that could help him remember are gone. As I stated, if you want to use this as an example then you also have to use the same reasoning that Iglesias is using and all I see is a letter by Schumer. I also don't see anywhere in your article that states what Schumer was asking for was something that he wasn't entitled to, as Iglesias is. Now as I've stated more than once, I'm no lawyer........maybe Iglesias has a better moral fiber than Comey, or just maybe what Schumer did is not comparable to what Domenici did. Until you can convice me the two are the same, then I'll have to stick my my opinion.


........oh what the hell.......I can't control myself......you're not just trying to throw this in, because it has to do with Plame are you?:poke:

[glockmail]

If Plame lied under oath, there would be an indictment and she'd be awaiting trial. She didn't lie.

....

However her husband's a Democrat operative who was willing to lie about what he found in order to try and screw Bush, therefore she will get a pass.

[Samantha]

However her husband's a Democrat operative who was willing to lie about what he found in order to try and screw Bush, therefore she will get a pass.Gosh, where do you get all your misinformation from? Wilson found Niger didn't sell Iraq uranium. That's not a lie. Bush put the sentence in his speech inferring they did. That was the lie.

Do you know the difference between a lie and the truth?

Are you so brainwashed by hannity/o'reilly/limbaugh/savage aka weiner?

[lily]

However her husband's a Democrat operative who was willing to lie about what he found in order to try and screw Bush, therefore she will get a pass.

Well...actually it's been proven that Sadaam was not trying to buy uranium for Niger and those 16 words were very important in that SOTU. Now whether he was wrong or just so damned eager to get into Iraq will never be known, but sorry Wilson was right.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

I'm not the lawyer here, but I don't see anything asking questions about sealed indictments. As I sit here typing I wish for the open and honest questions being asked with actual letters doing the asking and not "missing" and "erased" emails, or phone calls in the middle of the night. If Schumer was breaking any laws, then I strongly advise him to lawyer up and let the games begin.

I'd also interested to know if you have any links to Comey feeling pressured or loosing his job because he didn't perform as Schumer asked.

Contacting the Deputy Atty General, who is the assistant to the AG, is a world apart from contacting a USA. In fact, it's the job of the deputy to handle such inquiries concerning litigation status, not the USA. Schumer followed the proper procedure. Dominici did not.

[Samantha]

Contacting the Deputy Atty General, who is the assistant to the AG, is a world apart from contacting a USA. In fact, it's the job of the deputy to handle such inquiries concerning litigation status, not the USA. Schumer followed the proper procedure. Dominici did not.There it is then. I love how the right always tries to bring up a democrat to compare to the republican involved in a scandal, but fails to research it and fails in the comparison. Instead of just discussing the actual issue....maybe trying to argue the scandalized republican's case, they keep trying this comparison tactic and it keeps failing them. I suggest a new strategy righties, in fact I have a good idea. How about you stop defending these crooks and call for transparent and honest government like we do?

[Dilloduck]

There it is then. I love how the right always tries to bring up a democrat to compare to the republican involved in a scandal, but fails to research it and fails in the comparison. Instead of just discussing the actual issue....maybe trying to argue the scandalized republican's case, they keep trying this comparison tactic and it keeps failing them. I suggest a new strategy righties, in fact I have a good idea. How about you stop defending these crooks and call for transparent and honest government like we do?

Right---that's why you keep cash freezing crooks. :laugh2: :laugh2:

[Samantha]

Right---that's why you keep cash freezing crooks. :laugh2: :laugh2:I keep them?

Try to make sense, won't you?

[Dilloduck]

I keep them?

Try to make sense, won't you?

oh my---neg rep for me exposing the truth ?? Your "holier than thou" approach to politcs is ridiculous.

[Samantha]

oh my---neg rep for me exposing the truth ?? Your "holier than thou" approach to politcs is ridiculous.LOL!!!!!! Too funny.

[Dilloduck]

LOL!!!!!! Too funny.

Is this an example of transparent and honest ??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601672.html

[loosecannon]

Right---that's why you keep cash freezing crooks. :laugh2: :laugh2:

I am afraid you are bsing us Duck.

The FBI supposedly had Jefferson nailed dead to rights, even a video of the exchange of the bribe. They found cash in his freezer and they searched his office seizing computers, files etc.

Why hasn't he been charged? The DOJ and the FBI are both under the executive branch IOW Bush's responsibility.

Why haven't the DOJ and the FBI yet succeeded in pressing charges?

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Why would they simply hold onto evidence like that for a year plus and not press charges Duck?

Cuz I can only think of 3 possible reasons and none are flattering to the BA.

[Dilloduck]

I am afraid you are bsing us Duck.

The FBI supposedly had Jefferson nailed dead to rights, even a video of the exchange of the bribe. They found cash in his freezer and they searched his office seizing computers, files etc.

Why hasn't he been charged? The DOJ and the FBI are both under the executive branch IOW Bush's responsibility.

Why haven't the DOJ and the FBI yet succeeded in pressing charges?

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Why would they simply hold onto evidence like that for a year plus and not press charges Duck?

Cuz I can only think of 3 possible reasons and none are flattering to the BA.

Doesn't make me wonder at all---what makes me wonder why this guy is on and kind of committee at all much less Homeland Security.

[Samantha]

Is this an example of transparent and honest ??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601672.htmlIt's not an example of secret and dishonest if that's what you're going for.

Why is that crook not being indicted, do you know? I'll tell ya. Dennis Hastart and Bill Frist Republicans, don't think the FBI should have searched his office. They want to take it to the Supreme Court.

How's that for secret and dishonest, the motto of the republican party eh?


Hastert: FBI 'took the wrong path' when searching lawmaker's office
Majority leader suggests that issue may go to the Supreme Court

Tuesday, May 23, 2006; Posted: 10:40 p.m. EDT (02:40 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Tuesday that the FBI and the Justice Department "took the wrong path" when they searched a Democratic congressman's office this weekend as part of an anti-corruption probe.

"We understand that they want to support and pursue the process that the Justice Department is trying to pursue," Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, said. "But there's ways to do it, and my opinion is that they took the wrong path."

The FBI searched the Washington home and office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-Louisiana, and found $90,000 of allegedly ill-gotten funds in the freezer of his home, according to an affidavit. (Full story)

Jefferson's office is in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill.

Leaders from both both parties and both houses of Congress have expressed concern about the search.

On Monday, both Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Hastert said they were "very concerned" about the search, which was conducted under a warrant issued by a federal judge. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/23/jefferson/index.html

[Dilloduck]

It's not an example of secret and dishonest if that's what you're going for.

Why is that crook not being indicted, do you know? I'll tell ya. Dennis Hastart and Bill Frist Republicans, don't think the FBI should have searched his office. They want to take it to the Supreme Court.

How's that for secret and dishonest, the motto of the republican party eh?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/23/jefferson/index.html

Don't confuse concern for due process with thinking Jefferson is just an OK and upstanding guy. I don't hear the squeaky clean Democrats calling for his prosecution.

[Dilloduck]

Oh looky what you coveniently managed to leave out of the story----Is this an example of transparency ????:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:



While emphasizing that all lawmakers must obey the law and the rules of the House, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, on Tuesday echoed Hastert's concern that the Constitution's separation of powers had been violated.

"Our founders in their wisdom placed this separation of powers into our Constitution, not to put anyone above the law but to protect the American people of the abusive power of the executive branch," Pelosi said.

When asked whether Jefferson should step down, Pelosi said that "is a matter between him and his constituents."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/23/jefferson/index.html

[loosecannon]

Doesn't make me wonder at all---what makes me wonder why this guy is on and kind of committee at all much less Homeland Security.

Exactly Duck, why haven't the Bush admin depts arrested him yet?

I mean all appearances were that a year ago they had far more than enough evidence to charge Jefferson.

But why won't the Bush admin departments charge him?

It boggles the mind. Incompetence, no case at all, blackmail, what else could it be?

[Dilloduck]

Exactly Duck, why haven't the Bush admin depts arrested him yet?

I mean all appearances were that a year ago they had far more than enough evidence to charge Jefferson.

But why won't the Bush admin departments charge him?

It boggles the mind. Incompetence, no case at all, blackmail, what else could it be?

Lot's of things if you bothered to read what people have posted

[manu1959]

Exactly Duck, why haven't the Bush admin depts arrested him yet?

I mean all appearances were that a year ago they had far more than enough evidence to charge Jefferson.

But why won't the Bush admin departments charge him?

It boggles the mind. Incompetence, no case at all, blackmail, what else could it be?

i would surmise for the same reasons that charges have not been filed against bush.....:poke:

[CockySOB]

Irrelevant how? Gonzales' main defense is I can't remember and oddly all the things that could help him remember are gone. As I stated, if you want to use this as an example then you also have to use the same reasoning that Iglesias is using and all I see is a letter by Schumer. I also don't see anywhere in your article that states what Schumer was asking for was something that he wasn't entitled to, as Iglesias is. Now as I've stated more than once, I'm no lawyer........maybe Iglesias has a better moral fiber than Comey, or just maybe what Schumer did is not comparable to what Domenici did. Until you can convice me the two are the same, then I'll have to stick my my opinion.

........oh what the hell.......I can't control myself......you're not just trying to throw this in, because it has to do with Plame are you?:poke:

Lily, I mentioned this because it highlighted the same type of improper action which Domenici and Wilson had with Iglesias, although between two different parties (Schumer and Comey). I did NOT mention it in refereence of the Plame kerfluffle, although I can understand how you might have made that connection. Thanks for asking me to clarify that. Schumer was no more entitled to enquire on that investigation than Domenici or Wilson were inquiring into the otehr investigation.

Look at it this way: you know that I equate WJC lying under oath to Libby lying under oath, and that I consider both to be equally wrong because I looked at the criminal action only.

[Birdzeye]

Don't confuse concern for due process with thinking Jefferson is just an OK and upstanding guy. I don't hear the squeaky clean Democrats calling for his prosecution.

Who's saying that Jefferson is "just an OK and upstanding guy?"

[lily]

Lily, I mentioned this because it highlighted the same type of improper action which Domenici and Wilson had with Iglesias, although between two different parties (Schumer and Comey).

I believe that Baron addressed that point in post #70


I did NOT mention it in refereence of the Plame kerfluffle, although I can understand how you might have made that connection. Thanks for asking me to clarify that.

Oh Cocky......some people will always have the memory of Paris....we two sadly will only have the memory of Plame.:laugh2:

[glockmail]

Gosh, where do you get all your misinformation from? Wilson found Niger didn't sell Iraq uranium. That's not a lie. Bush put the sentence in his speech inferring they did. That was the lie.

Do you know the difference between a lie and the truth?

Are you so brainwashed by hannity/o'reilly/limbaugh/savage aka weiner?


Well...actually it's been proven that Sadaam was not trying to buy uranium for Niger and those 16 words were very important in that SOTU. Now whether he was wrong or just so damned eager to get into Iraq will never be known, but sorry Wilson was right. Wilson found the answer that he was looking for, and lied because he said he did an extensive investigation. Bush just happened to be wrong (maybe), which is not a lie by any definition except Democrats playing the "gotcha" game.

[loosecannon]

I recall he made a slam dunk case, where only the President shall discuss policy with foreign dignitaries. That policy has Constitutional and SCOTUS precendent. Therfore Pelosi committed treason.

Then your recollections must include posts from a fantasy board.

Policy is discussed by all kinds of people including Republican and Dem Congress critters.

The only terrain that might be exclusive to the executive might be negotiations with foreign nations and that only based on the thread that only the pres can legally represent the US.

You are peddling bunk.

[loosecannon]

She lied then. :laugh2:


Bozo, I think I will take the word of a career intel officer before congress over yours and the entire state you live in.

[lily]

Wilson found the answer that he was looking for, and lied because he said he did an extensive investigation. Bush just happened to be wrong (maybe), which is not a lie by any definition except Democrats playing the "gotcha" game.

Ok, I understand now......it's Wilson who found the answer he was looking for....as for the "gotcha" game. I don't consider this war a game by any means.:salute:

[loosecannon]

Lot's of things if you bothered to read what people have posted


I read all that 8 months ago. I absolutely do not buy it.

First off Justice got a subpoena. Second unless they already know that they were wrong they would have gone forward and dealt with the legal challenges just like they have over Gitmo, military tribunals and holding US citizens as enemy combatants.

But no charges are filed, none.

WHY?????

There is one other possibility but the mere mention of it will cause your balls to shrivel up between your ears.

[loosecannon]

i would surmise for the same reasons that charges have not been filed against bush.....:poke:

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jefferson was "caught" while the GOPers had a lock on the presidency and the Congress and before a CRITICAL election that screwed that pooch.

Bush hasn't been charged simply because the rubber stamp GOP congress wouldn't exercise oversight.

Bush WILL be charged.

[loosecannon]

Wilson found the answer that he was looking for, and lied because he said he did an extensive investigation. Bush just happened to be wrong (maybe), which is not a lie by any definition except Democrats playing the "gotcha" game.

This is just goobledegoop.

Bush spoke a carefully coined phrase that was hinged on the brit's "intell" that had already been proven false by intell agencies all across the globe.

Bush knew or should have known it was false.

To claim Wilson lied because he "exagerated the detail of his investigation" is ludicrous. The investigation was only cursory before it revealed no effort to purchase uranium.

BTW, the GOP spin on this for years has been that Saddam did send agents once to look into purchasing U 235 but they were immediately rebuked.

You should at least study the proffessionally crafted talking points rather than rely on your own clumsy newspeak.

Even Karl Rove won't back your version.

[Samantha]

Ok, I understand now......it's Wilson who found the answer he was looking for....as for the "gotcha" game. I don't consider this war a game by any means.:salute:At least he finally understands that Wilson found the truth and Bush was wrong. Yes, he worded it so it sounds like he's still arguing with us about the facts, but the facts are the facts. And maybe a person with a smaller ego could admit we were right all along, but this one, won't ever be able to do it. ;)

Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Stephen Colbert

:D

[lily]

At least he finally understands that Wilson found the truth and Bush was wrong. Yes, he worded it so it sounds like he's still arguing with us about the facts, but the facts are the facts. And maybe a person with a smaller ego could admit we were right all along, but this one, won't ever be able to do it. ;)

Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Stephen Colbert

:D

Baby steps, Sam.....baby steps. It's a step in the right direction.

[Samantha]

Baby steps, Sam.....baby steps. It's a step in the right direction.You're right Lily, you're nicer than me ;)

Kudos to glock for taking baby steps ;)

[loosecannon]

You're right Lily, you're nicer than me ;)

Kudos to glock for taking baby steps ;)


That's what healthy babies do.

[CockySOB]

I believe that Baron addressed that point in post #70
He addressed his opinion of why he thinks the two are dissimilar, and I expressed my opinion that the two are similar. Why beat a dead horse?


Oh Cocky......some people will always have the memory of Paris....we two sadly will only have the memory of Plame.:laugh2:LOL! But I gotta say Lily, that such a memory must be disappointing for you seeing as Fitz-mas never came for you. There, there honey, it'll be OK... someday. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

Then your recollections must include posts from a fantasy board.

Policy is discussed by all kinds of people including Republican and Dem Congress critters.

The only terrain that might be exclusive to the executive might be negotiations with foreign nations and that only based on the thread that only the pres can legally represent the US.

You are peddling bunk.

Yes. That is why Pelosi committed treason.

[glockmail]

This is just goobledegoop.

Bush spoke a carefully coined phrase that was hinged on the brit's "intell" that had already been proven false by intell agencies all across the globe.

Bush knew or should have known it was false.

To claim Wilson lied because he "exagerated the detail of his investigation" is ludicrous. The investigation was only cursory before it revealed no effort to purchase uranium.

BTW, the GOP spin on this for years has been that Saddam did send agents once to look into purchasing U 235 but they were immediately rebuked.

You should at least study the proffessionally crafted talking points rather than rely on your own clumsy newspeak.

Even Karl Rove won't back your version.

Obvously I don't study GOP talking points, and rely on a conservative perspective rather than one of your so-called neocons, whoever that boogyman may be today.

The fact that Saddam sought out yellowcake at all is evidence enough that he was looking to build a nuke weapon. :pee:

[loosecannon]

Obvously I don't study GOP talking points, and rely on a conservative perspective rather than one of your so-called neocons, whoever that boogyman may be today.

The fact that Saddam sought out yellowcake at all is evidence enough that he was looking to build a nuke weapon. :pee:


Saddam had been seeking to build a nuclear weapons since the 80's when the US had a robust and supportive relationship with him. We had no problem with his intentions then.

The fact is, and has since been proven, that he made no inroads, had only a single brief inquiry into Niger's U 235 availability and dropped it.

Wilson wasn't sent to investigate any historic attempts of Saddam to acquire Uranium, just recent potentially succesful attempts.

But the 16 words were crafted as a deliberately false statemnent while maintaining the veneer of deniability.

[loosecannon]

Yes. That is why Pelosi committed treason.

No evidence has been posted on this board that Pelosi negotiated anything. Speaking isn't negotiating.

[Birdzeye]

No evidence has been posted on this board that Pelosi negotiated anything. Speaking isn't negotiating.

Sheesh. How many times have we pointed this out, and the True Believers are STILL repeating that same bullshit! They sure seem to have a big emotional investment in the Pelosi-is-a-traitor fantasy of theirs.

[manu1959]

No evidence has been posted on this board that Pelosi negotiated anything. Speaking isn't negotiating.

not true ... i posted links to exactly what she discussed and at least two were current foriegn policy issues ... you will simply argue semantics that she was not negotiating them ...

[Birdzeye]

not true ... i posted links to exactly what she discussed and at least two were current foriegn policy issues ... you will simply argue semantics that she was not negotiating them ...

How many times do we have to point out to you that discussing an issue is not necessarily "negotiation?" Sheesh.

[loosecannon]

not true ... i posted links to exactly what she discussed and at least two were current foriegn policy issues ... you will simply argue semantics that she was not negotiating them ...


But the fact is discussions are not negotiations Manu. And there is simply no way in hell that the press knows exactly what was discussed, how and with what intent.

ALL congresspersons are at liberty to discuss policy, fact find, meet and greet, etc. They can not negotiate as representatives of the whole US.

[manu1959]

How many times do we have to point out to you that discussing an issue is not necessarily "negotiation?" Sheesh.

so she was discussing getting the syrians and isralies to the peace table?

got it ..... btw .... bush was not deleting e-mails he was saving them in cyberspace .... you know he saved them before he deleted them

[manu1959]

But the fact is discussions are not negotiations Manu. And there is simply no way in hell that the press knows exactly what was discussed, how and with what intent.

ALL congresspersons are at liberty to discuss policy, fact find, meet and greet, etc. They can not negotiate as representatives of the whole US.

the fact is discussing foreign policy issues such as peace talks between syria and israel is negotiating .... spin it however you like ....

are you saying she was not trying to facilitate the peace process between syria and israel?

[loosecannon]

the fact is discussing foreign policy issues such as peace talks between syria and israel is negotiating .... spin it however you like ....


that depends on what was said.

Simple discussion is not negotiation.

Negotiation depends on the intent to strike a bargain.

We can discuss Gunny's pickup all day without his authorization.

We can't make a deal to sell it without his authorization. Or to get it's tires changed etc.

But we can talk about the truck forever and it is none of Gunny's business.

[Samantha]

so she was discussing getting the syrians and isralies to the peace table?

got it ..... btw .... bush was not deleting e-mails he was saving them in cyberspace .... you know he saved them before he deleted them
What's this about Bush deleting emails? Bush doesn't email.


"I don't e-mail," Bush said. "And there's a reason. I don't want you reading my personal stuff." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56001-2005Apr15.html

[manu1959]

What's this about Bush deleting emails? Bush doesn't email.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56001-2005Apr15.html

guess you got me there .... looks like bush is in the clear .... how honorable of you to defend bush

[loosecannon]

so she was discussing getting the syrians and isralies to the peace table?



That is a paraphrase based on a third hand report.

You have no idea what she discussed, and with what intent.

[manu1959]

That is a paraphrase based on a third hand report.

You have no idea what she discussed, and with what intent.

no it was based on what she said on her news conference...she said she discussed syria and israel and hezbollah and that she had set aside her differences with the pres and presented the posistion of the current administration....

sure sound like she was disccussing forigen policy to me....sure sounds like there was a purpose to her discussion....her intent was one of two things....support the current admin or undercut it.....either way she is negotiating....discussing as i am sure you know is a subset of negotiating....

or are you tring to tell me she was discussing without intent or purpose....

[loosecannon]

no it was based on what she said on her news conference...she said she discussed syria and israel and hezbollah and that she had set aside her differences with the pres and presented the posistion of the current administration....

That is purely YOUR paraphrase


sure sound like she was disccussing forigen policy to me....

She is fully entitled to a mere discussion of foreign policy


sure sounds like there was a purpose to her discussion....

but you don't know what that purpose was


her intent was one of two things....support the current admin or undercut it.....either way she is negotiating....

You have no idea how many "things" her intent may have been, you are manufacturing criteria, expressing unfounded opinion and speculating.


discussing as i am sure you know is a subset of negotiating....


No negotiating is a subset of discussion


or are you tring to tell me she was discussing without intent or purpose....

I am saying that you don't know what her intents and purposes were.

She is fully allowed to discuss with intent and purpose as long as those intents, purposes and actual discussion do not comprise negotiations on behalf of the united States.

She was for example at complete liberty to discuss Bush's sinking stature in the body politic or his abuse of the English language or even if the Syrian pres had information about the black market in gasoline between Syrai and Iraq.

That is fact finding, meet and greet and just discussion.

[manu1959]

That is purely YOUR paraphrase
She is fully entitled to a mere discussion of foreign policy
but you don't know what that purpose was
You have no idea how many "things" her intent may have been, you are manufacturing criteria, expressing unfounded opinion and speculating.
No negotiating is a subset of discussion
I am saying that you don't know what her intents and purposes were.
She is fully allowed to discuss with intent and purpose as long as those intents, purposes and actual discussion comprise negotiations on behalf of the united States.
She was for example at complete liberty to discuss Bush's sinking stature in the body politic or his abuse of the English language or even if the Syrian pres had information about the black market in gasoline between Syrai and Iraq.
That is fact finding, meet and greet and just discussion.

so she did have a purpose and intent to her visit....she discussed things relating to the current administration, us politics and world events....

you have to discuss to negotiate...you can not negotiate without discussing....

she was negotiating with a purpose as a member of the us government without authority of the comander in chief....and you can not prove otherwise...

[manu1959]

so she did have a purpose and intent to her visit....she discussed things relating to the current administration, us politics and world events....

you have to discuss to negotiate...you can not negotiate without discussing....

she was negotiating with a purpose as a member of the us government without authority of the comander in chief....and you can not prove otherwise...

you should be able to rep yourself.....:laugh2:

[glockmail]

... the 16 words were crafted as a deliberately false statemnent while maintaining the veneer of deniability. In your and other Liberal's opinion, of course. :rolleyes:

[glockmail]

No evidence has been posted on this board that Pelosi negotiated anything. Speaking isn't negotiating.
It has been reported that she was discussing 'the alternative Democratic (sic) perspective', meaning that she was revealing her plan to deep six the efforts of the CIC.

[Samantha]

How many of you plan to watch Gonzales's testimony tomorrow on C-Span? I'm going to watch tomorrow night after work.


Democrats, and some Republicans, have called for Gonzales' resignation over his handling of the matter.

But at the White House, spokeswoman Dana Perino reiterated President Bush's support for Gonzales.

"The attorney general has the full confidence of the president. The president wanted the Justice Department to be fully responsive and they have been," she said.

The growing controversy has prompted the resignations of two top aides to Gonzales, including his chief of staff. The attorney general says he has done nothing that would warrant his own resignation.http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-04-18-voa60.cfm

The DOJ has not been fully responsive, that's a lie Dana is telling. Monica Goodling is refusing to talk at all! That's the opposite of fully responsive. But hey, I guess a lying administration has to have a lying spokesperson.

[Birdzeye]

so she did have a purpose and intent to her visit....she discussed things relating to the current administration, us politics and world events....

you have to discuss to negotiate...you can not negotiate without discussing....

she was negotiating with a purpose as a member of the us government without authority of the comander in chief....and you can not prove otherwise...


How many times do we have to repeat this before you understand it: having a discussion does NOT mean that "negotiations" are taking place!

[Gunny]

How many times do we have to repeat this before you understand it: having a discussion does NOT mean that "negotiations" are taking place!

The US Constitution, Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 establishes the role of the President in regard to receiving foreign visitors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#_not e-0

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) is the legal precedent/ruling set forth by the US Supreme Court:


The Court reasoned that, while the Constitution may not explicitly say that all ability to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation is vested in the President, such power is nonetheless granted implicitly. Moreover, said the Court, the Executive, by its very nature, is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way which Congress cannot and should not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Curtiss-Wright_Export_Corp.

It states simply that the US Constitution implicitly grants to the President the ability to conduct foreign policy -- not "negotiate" -- on behalf of the Nation.

It further states that the Executive branch, not the legislative branch is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way Congress cannot and should not.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether she was "chit-chatting" about foreign policy, or "negotiating" foreign policy. Either way, as a member of Congress, she was sticking her nose into the conduct of foreign affairs which the legal precedent clearly states is not Congress's business.

[CockySOB]

The US Constitution, Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 establishes the role of the President in regard to receiving foreign visitors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#_not e-0

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) is the legal precedent/ruling set forth by the US Supreme Court:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Curtiss-Wright_Export_Corp.

It states simply that the US Constitution implicitly grants to the President the ability to conduct foreign policy -- not "negotiate" -- on behalf of the Nation.

It further states that the Executive branch, not the legislative branch is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way Congress cannot and should not.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether she was "chit-chatting" about foreign policy, or "negotiating" foreign policy. Either way, as a member of Congress, she was sticking her nose into the conduct of foreign affairs which the legal precedent clearly states is not Congress's business.

You must spread reputation around before giving it to Gunny again....

(or something to that effect - excellent post)

[manu1959]

How many times do we have to repeat this before you understand it: having a discussion does NOT mean that "negotiations" are taking place!

so she did have a purpose and intent to her visit....she discussed things relating to the current administration, us politics and world events....

you have to discuss to negotiate...you can not negotiate without discussing....

she was negotiating with a purpose as a member of the us government without authority of the comander in chief....and you can not prove otherwise...

[Samantha]

Gonzo is testifying right now, anyone listening?

http://www.npr.org/ Listen live

[manu1959]

Gonzo is testifying right now, anyone listening?

http://www.npr.org/ Listen live

doesn't matter what he says...one side will claim lies...one side will claim truth....he will get tripped up in a technicality and resign to spend more time with his family.....victory and corruption will be claimed and yet we will still be at war ....

[Samantha]

doesn't matter what he says...one side will claim lies...one side will claim truth....he will get tripped up in a technicality and resign to spend more time with his family.....victory and corruption will be claimed and yet we will still be at war ....It matters very much what he says. And if you don't listen now, or watch tonight after work, you'll never know what the truth is. Right now they are reading lots of testimony from Sampson and others that contradicts what Gonzales is saying.

[manu1959]

It matters very much what he says. And if you don't listen now, or watch tonight after work, you'll never know what the truth is. Right now they are reading lots of testimony from Sampson and others that contradicts what Gonzales is saying.

the truth is it will be on you tube forever.....i don't have a tv at work....i gues you will get to choose between believing sampson and beliving gonzales....that will be an easy choice for you i am sure....you don't want to belive anything he says...so you won't....like i said...the truth no longer matters....they need a head...they will get one....congress can not come up empty handed

[glockmail]

How many times do we have to repeat this before you understand it: having a discussion does NOT mean that "negotiations" are taking place! Bull. Why else would she be there but to undermine the Bush Administration?

[lily]

doesn't matter what he says...one side will claim lies...one side will claim truth....he will get tripped up in a technicality and resign to spend more time with his family.....victory and corruption will be claimed and yet we will still be at war ....

Well, that's not exactly true. Both sides of the aisle are calling for him to go, the White House has pretty much distanced themselves from him....and when you get a "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie"..........you know your days are numbered.

Also there is no tripping up on a technicality, when you are telling the truth. It's when you have to remember which lie you told is when the trouble starts.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041900192.html

Gonzales Defends Actions on U.S. Attorney Firings

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 19, 2007; 5:44 PM

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told a Senate panel today that the
controversial firing of eight U.S. attorneys was "flawed," but he continued
to insist that there was "nothing improper" about the removals, and he
rebuffed suggestions that he resign.

Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the nation's chief law
enforcement officer faced tough, skeptical questioning from both Democratic
and Republican senators, as he argued that he had "limited involvement" in
the process that led to the firings but defended them nonetheless.



One Republican senator, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, pointedly told Gonzales that
the dismissals have been handled "in a very incompetent manner," tarnishing
the reputations of the prosecutors and damaging public confidence in the
Justice Department.

"I believe the best way to put this behind us is your resignation," Coburn
said. Gonzales rejected the idea, saying he was committed to correcting his
mistakes.

At the end of the hearing, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) also urged
Gonzales to step down "for the good of the department and the good of the
country."

The top Republican on the committee, Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), told the
embattled attorney general that "your credibility has been significantly
impaired" as a result of the hearing, but he stopped short of calling on him
to resign.

Earlier, Gonzales said he would quit only if he thought he could no longer
be effective.

"I have admitted mistakes in managing this issue, but the department as a
general matter has not been mismanaged," he said. "We've done great things."

Saying he was working hard to improve morale at Justice in the wake of the
controversy, he told the committee, "The moment I believe I can no longer be
effective, I will resign. . . ." But he added, "I believe I can continue to
be effective as the attorney general of the United States," and he told
senators, "I don't have anything to hide."

In a statement after the hearing, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said
Bush

"was pleased with the attorney general's testimony today" and continues to
have "full confidence" in him.

[stephanie]

the truth no longer matters....they need a head...they will get one....congress can not come up empty handed


Shouldn't you have said......empty headed...:laugh2:

[Birdzeye]

But the fact is discussions are not negotiations Manu. And there is simply no way in hell that the press knows exactly what was discussed, how and with what intent.

ALL congresspersons are at liberty to discuss policy, fact find, meet and greet, etc. They can not negotiate as representatives of the whole US.


Well said.

:clap:

[Gunny]

Well said.

:clap:

The US Constitution, Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 establishes the role of the President in regard to receiving foreign visitors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...tion#_not e-0

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) is the legal precedent/ruling set forth by the US Supreme Court:


Quote:
The Court reasoned that, while the Constitution may not explicitly say that all ability to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation is vested in the President, such power is nonetheless granted implicitly. Moreover, said the Court, the Executive, by its very nature, is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way which Congress cannot and should not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ht_Export_Corp.

It states simply that the US Constitution implicitly grants to the President the ability to conduct foreign policy -- not "negotiate" -- on behalf of the Nation.

It further states that the Executive branch, not the legislative branch is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way Congress cannot and should not.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether she was "chit-chatting" about foreign policy, or "negotiating" foreign policy. Either way, as a member of Congress, she was sticking her nose into the conduct of foreign affairs which the legal precedent clearly states is not Congress's business.


Not so " well said."

[Samantha]

As it shows in Lily's post,

Even a Republican Senator called for him to resign. I heard him at lunch on the radio. The Oklahoma Senator said he thought that Gonzales should be dealt with the same way he claims he dealt with the Attorneys. Gonzo said they were fired for performance issues. Coburn said Gonzales's handling of the firings was incompetent.


"The best way to put this behind us is your resignation," Senator Tom Coburn bluntly told Gonzales, one Republican conservative to another.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/205115

You're doing a heck of a job Gonzo.

Anyone watch it? It's on C-Span2 right now.

[Kathianne]

Well, that's not exactly true. Both sides of the aisle are calling for him to go, the White House has pretty much distanced themselves from him....and when you get a "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie"..........you know your days are numbered.

Also there is no tripping up on a technicality, when you are telling the truth. It's when you have to remember which lie you told is when the trouble starts.

Truth is, many conservatives disliked him way before this. For 'no profiling', Sandy Berger, and immigration. This is just the wrong issue, but no one will shed tears when he's gone.

[stephanie]

Truth is, many conservatives disliked him way before this. For 'no profiling', Sandy Berger, and immigration. This is just the wrong issue, but no one will shed tears when he's gone.

Yep...I couldn't stand the guy, myself..

He was a wimp....:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Yep...I couldn't stand the guy, myself..

He was a wimp....:laugh2:

More than a wimp, I'll be glad to see him gone, but not for this reason. Get him through it hopefully, then accept his resignation like Manu said.

[stephanie]

More than a wimp, I'll be glad to see him gone, but not for this reason. Get him through it hopefully, then accept his resignation like Manu said.

Agreed..This Is a Democrat witch hunt, and they know it..
So yes, lets get him through this, then say goodbye..

[Samantha]

Agreed..This Is a Democrat witch hunt...That some Republicans are a part of?

[stephanie]

That some Republicans are a part of?

Yep..

[Samantha]

Yep..
Why would a Republican join a Democratic witch hunt?

[manu1959]

Why would a Republican join a Democratic witch hunt?

votes?

[Kathianne]

votes?

Say it's not so! :lol:

[loosecannon]

Say it's not so! :lol:

Are you guys posting while sleeping?

This is no dem witch hunt. This is congress doing their ordinary job. Oversight. Gonzo is to the justice dept what Harriet Miers is to the Supreme Court.

He should never have been approved by the senate. He is way past his shelf life. Kick him to the curb if you love your country and move on.

[Kathianne]

Are you guys posting while sleeping?

This is no dem witch hunt. This is congress doing their ordinary job. Oversight. Gonzo is to the justice dept what Harriet Miers is to the Supreme Court.

He should never have been approved by the senate. He is way past his shelf life. Kick him to the curb if you love your country and move on.

Are you hearing a defense of him? What has been said? The Senate did confirm him.

[manu1959]

Are you hearing a defense of him? What has been said? The Senate did confirm him.

you expect him to read what you write?

[Kathianne]

you expect him to read what you write?

You're right, my mistake.

[glockmail]

Are you guys posting while sleeping?

This is no dem witch hunt. This is congress doing their ordinary job. Oversight. Gonzo is to the justice dept what Harriet Miers is to the Supreme Court.

He should never have been approved by the senate. He is way past his shelf life. Kick him to the curb if you love your country and move on. You don't like him cuz he's a spic?

[loosecannon]

Are you hearing a defense of him? What has been said? The Senate did confirm him.

and that was a mistake.

Kick him to the curb and move on.

Are you gonna support Bush when Bush refuses to comply with congressional subpoenas and refuses to dump Gonzo?

[Kathianne]

and that was a mistake.

Kick him to the curb and move on.

Are you gonna support Bush when Bush refuses to comply with congressional subpoenas and refuses to dump Gonzo?

Bush is going to be served with subpoenas?

[loosecannon]

Bush is going to be served with subpoenas?

already has been delusional one, haven't you been paying any attention?

[loosecannon]

You don't like him cuz he's a spic?


WHERE did you get that glockster?

[glockmail]

WHERE did you get that glockster? Borrowed it from a lib. :slap:

[Kathianne]

already has been delusional one, haven't you been paying any attention?

right. I may have missed it, how about a link please?

[loosecannon]

right. I may have missed it, how about a link please?


e-mails in the Gonzo case, easy google, go for it.

[Kathianne]

e-mails in the Gonzo case, easy google, go for it.

Gee, I thought I asked nicely.

[loosecannon]

Gee, I thought I asked nicely.


I am busy. Would you get me some dinner?

Why should I dig up your news?

[Kathianne]

I am busy. Would you get me some dinner?

Why should I dig up your news?

Right, why should you back what you say? Umm, you choose to participate on messageboard?

[lily]

Agreed..This Is a Democrat witch hunt, and they know it..
So yes, lets get him through this, then say goodbye..


In your last post, you agreed that he should be gone because of his incometence......then how exactly is this a Democratic witch hunt?

[loosecannon]

Right, why should you back what you say? Umm, you choose to participate on messageboard?

I should back what I say when I choose to.

Can I demand that you pressure gunny to back what he says? Or should I ask why you don't? And why he won't?

I don't have time to fullfill the narcissistic request of every poster on this board who starts threads with my name in it, continually demands my attention with neg reps and who won't take the most basic steps to educate themselves.

I get paid to tutor the hard cases. When you start paying me I will jump every time you ask for a link.

[Kathianne]

I should back what I say when I choose to.

Can I demand that you pressure gunny to back what he says? Or should I ask why you don't? And why he won't?

I don't have time to fullfill the narcissistic request of every poster on this board who starts threads with my name in it, continually demands my attention with neg reps and who won't take the most basic steps to educate themselves.

I get paid to tutor the hard cases. When you start paying me I will jump every time you ask for a link.

Gunny has zip to do with this. Fine, you don't have time. Don't question then why I choose not to respond. As for tutoring, I'd fire your ass.

[glockmail]

....I'd fire your ass. There you go loose. I told you she was a dom. :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

In your last post, you agreed that he should be gone because of his incometence......then how exactly is this a Democratic witch hunt?


Lily I am surprised at your apparent naivety.

This is a democratic witch hunt in the same way everything bush bot is about them evil dems.

It is with hypocritical construction that the right villifies everybody else for their own sins.

It has been this way for hundreds of years which accounts for slavery, feudalism, holy wars, raping continents, several waves of genocides, and the stealing of continents.

It is always their fault that we abuse them, kill them, enslave them, steal from them. Why we are practically doing them a favor.

Exactly the same as Iraq. We are killing them by the million to endow them with precious democracy. They should be much more grateful.

[loosecannon]

Gunny has zip to do with this. Fine, you don't have time. Don't question then why I choose not to respond. As for tutoring, I'd fire your ass.

You never hired me in the first place.

I refuse to be a tutor to those dedicated to ignorance.

And yes gunny has everything to do with your hypocritical demands for links.

[Gunny]

I should back what I say when I choose to.

Can I demand that you pressure gunny to back what he says? Or should I ask why you don't? And why he won't?

I don't have time to fullfill the narcissistic request of every poster on this board who starts threads with my name in it, continually demands my attention with neg reps and who won't take the most basic steps to educate themselves.

I get paid to tutor the hard cases. When you start paying me I will jump every time you ask for a link.

I backed what I said. You ever going to quit being a liar?

[loosecannon]

I backed what I said. You ever going to quit being a liar?


You are lying.

You posted unsubstantiated opinions and claimed, falsely, that they were facts.

You are proving yourself to be a serial liar and the fiorst step toward redeeming yourself is a step you are too small to take.

Admitting that you were wrong.

It doesn't take a giant to admit being wrong. But it appears to take a bigger man than you.

[manu1959]

You are lying.

You posted unsubstantiated opinions and claimed, falsely, that they were facts.

You are proving yourself to be a serial liar and the fiorst step toward redeeming yourself is a step you are too small to take.

Admitting that you were wrong.

It doesn't take a giant to admit being wrong. But it appears to take a bigger man than you.

this is you to a tee....

[loosecannon]

this is you to a tee....


No Manu, I have no prob admitting being wrong.

Gunny is constitutionally incapable of admitting obvious errors in his methodology.

[Gunny]

You are lying.

You posted unsubstantiated opinions and claimed, falsely, that they were facts.

You are proving yourself to be a serial liar and the fiorst step toward redeeming yourself is a step you are too small to take.

Admitting that you were wrong.

It doesn't take a giant to admit being wrong. But it appears to take a bigger man than you.

Are you STILL on this rant? Tyr getting over losing, and you intellectually dishonest tactics being exposed.

You obviously, wouldn't know an honest debate if it was a truck and ran over you.

I've admitted when I was wrong plenty of times. I refuse to admit I'm wrong when I'm not.

[loosecannon]

Are you STILL on this rant? Tyr getting over losing, and you intellectually dishonest tactics being exposed.

You obviously, wouldn't know an honest debate if it was a truck and ran over you.

I've admitted when I was wrong plenty of times. I refuse to admit I'm wrong when I'm not.

Thanks for the endless and boring rep comments Gunny.

I think you should be honest for once and admit that you are once again trying to make the thread about me to avoid the topic.

Gonzo testified, he got his ass reamed by dems and GOPers alike.

You should be able to relate to that.

Are you gonna kick him to the curb and move on or try that old "stay the course" routine that Bushbots are so famous for?

What about Bush himself facing the same two choices?

BTW, the nation has given Bush 200,000,000 neg rep points.

[Gunny]

Thanks for the endless and boring rep comments Gunny.

I think you should be honest for once and admit that you are once again trying to make the thread about me to avoid the topic.

Gonzo testified, he got his ass reamed by dems and GOPers alike.

You should be able to relate to that.

Are you gonna kick him to the curb and move on or try that old "stay the course" routine that Bushbots are so famous for?

What about Bush himself facing the same two choices?

BTW, the nation has given Bush 200,000,000 neg rep points.

LMAO ... YOU make every thread you touch about you, and just how smart you think you are, and how dumb you think everyone else. And I'm not the one going all over the board naming YOU by name like some whacked out stalker.;)

Ans since I really could give a rat's ass what happens to Gonzales, you rhetoric is wasted on me.

[loosecannon]

LMAO ... YOU make every thread you touch about you, and just how smart you think you are, and how dumb you think everyone else. And I'm not the one going all over the board naming YOU by name like some whacked out stalker.;)

Ans since I really could give a rat's ass what happens to Gonzales, you rhetoric is wasted on me.

Then why are you posting in the thread? And again making me the topic?

You wouldn't be trying to divert attention from the failures of the BA would you?

[Gunny]

Then why are you posting in the thread? And again making me the topic?

You wouldn't be trying to divert attention from the failures of the BA would you?

Why were you posting about Pelosi in this thread?

When you become a moderator, let me know. Might make what I do on this board your business.

[loosecannon]

"If Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had gone to the Senate yesterday to convince the world that he ought to be fired, it’s hard to imagine how he could have done a better job, short of simply admitting the obvious: that the firing of eight United States attorneys was a partisan purge," the Times editorial states. "Mr. Gonzales came across as a dull-witted apparatchik incapable of running one of the most important departments in the executive branch."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/NY_Times_Mr._Gonzales_came_across_0420.html


"At the end of the day, we were left wondering why the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer would paint himself as a bumbling fool. Perhaps it’s because the alternative is that he is not telling the truth. There is strong evidence that this purge was directed from the White House, and that Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s top political adviser, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, were deeply involved."

"We don’t yet know whether Mr. Gonzales is merely so incompetent that he should be fired immediately, or whether he is covering something up...[B]ut if we believe the testimony that neither he nor any other senior Justice Department official was calling the shots on the purge, then the public needs to know who was."

[loosecannon]

When you become a moderator, let me know. Might make what I do on this board your business.

Back at you Bucky

[Baron Von Esslingen]

LMAO ... YOU make every thread you touch about you, and just how smart you think you are, and how dumb you think everyone else. And I'm not the one going all over the board naming YOU by name like some whacked out stalker.;)

Ans since I really could give a rat's ass what happens to Gonzales, you rhetoric is wasted on me.


Then why are you posting in the thread? And again making me the topic?

You wouldn't be trying to divert attention from the failures of the BA would you?

Sure seems like it to me. If you don't care about AG, move on and let the discussion contiue.