DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on June 14, 2007, 01:10:49 AM
-
(http://www.cagle.com/working/070608/allie.jpg)
-
The irony, of course, being that BushCo and his acolytes, like you, who constantly play up how it was "just some guys with boxcutters who carried out the attacks on 9.11" (a LIE) and now are wanting to get credit for pointing out anyone who might have a boxcutter or a pointed stick as a terrorist in hopes that it will bring back the "good old days" of everyone blindly and fearfully following Bush's every dimwitted whim.
The ego of your cult is completely under assault so you are now in the unenviable position of hoping for another 9.11 (or at the very least the perception that BushCo and the Cult somehow stopped one) in order to get everyone back in line, lockstep-style.
-
The irony, of course, being that BushCo and his acolytes, like you, who constantly play up how it was "just some guys with boxcutters who carried out the attacks on 9.11" (a LIE)
LOL.....um yea, 911 was all just a figment of our imagination, and the entire country is lying to itself. Yea, that's it ::)
and now are wanting to get credit for pointing out anyone who might have a boxcutter or a pointed stick as a terrorist
Sure like'd to see how you make that leap of illogic. Please, do tell
The ego of your cult is completely under assault so you are now in the unenviable position of hoping for another 9.11 (or at the very least the perception that BushCo and the Cult somehow stopped one) in order to get everyone back in line, lockstep-style.
See, this is how twisted the left has become? Actually believing for a nanosecond I, or anyone else trying to stop the killing of innocents by terrorists, advocate the mass killing of innocents by terrorists. Of course, when you consider the source, its not surprising. Hell, if they can believe the asanine notion that Bush knew and let 911 happen, it doesn't take to many other tweaked neurons firing to believe someone like myself would want another 911
But you know, it's interesting how Brass introduced this demented line of logic. Apparently, in his mind, another 911 brings people to believe Bush would do better at dealing with it. Apparently in his mind, another 911 is the worst thing that could happen to the left. And ironically, it's the left making it harder and harder for BushCo to do just that. Interesting dilemma
-
Another Al Quieda success seems inevitable , bt there is alot of work going on to prevent it , to put it off as far as possible.
When it finally does happen , that some remaining chink in our armor is found and exploited , will it be possible for this party or that one to blame the other?
-
Another Al Quieda success seems inevitable , bt there is alot of work going on to prevent it , to put it off as far as possible. When it finally does happen , that some remaining chink in our armor is found and exploited , will it be possible for this party or that one to blame the other?
Hasn't stopped the cycle yet. Not long after 911, the right was blaming the left based on the walls built up between the various intel gathering departments facilitated by Democrat legislators, and that Clinton had numerous chances to get Usama, while the left was blaming the right since 911 "happened on Bush's watch". I don't see anything changing
-
<<while the left was blaming the right since 911 "happened on Bush's watch". >>
Well guess what? It DID happen on Bush's watch. Something that it was his duty (not Clinton's) to prevent, he didn't prevent.
Sorry, I'm not buying into "Blame Clinton for 911." Clinton got through two terms without any shit like that happening, so he must have been doing a good enough job. Bush knew everything that Clinton had done, the good and the bad, the successes and the failures - - he inherited the net outcome of the Clinton administration and from Inauguration Day on forward, it was his (Bush's) watch. If Clinton had fucked up, he knew (or could have or should have known) about the fuck-up; now it was up to him to take extra-special precautions to compensate for the Clinton fuckups (if in fact there were any.) But, Bush being Bush, he did jackshit - - and was caught with his pants down.
Sorry, sirs, if the ship hits an iceberg, blame the captain who hit it - - not the guy who used to be captain before.
-
1st deny, then minimize, then ridicule
As in, Abu Ghraib never happened! Oh, it was only fraternity pranks. Oh, it was only a few bad apples. Whatssamatta, you can't do a little "stress positions" and "changes in temperature" for the good of your COUNTRY? What are you, a wuss?
As in, No one ever outed Plame. Oh, she was never undercover. Oh...Her HUSBAND Outed her! That's the ticket! Right. She drove in and out of Langley every day, of course she wasn't undercover, how ridiculous. She was just a low-level....
Yeah, I get it now. I'll leave you all to it. It's a very good example for my children not to emulate.
-
See what I mean, Plane?
-
<<while the left was blaming the right since 911 "happened on Bush's watch". >>
Clinton got through two terms without any shit like that happening, so he must have been doing a good enough job. ...................
Sorry, sirs, if the ship hits an iceberg, blame the captain who hit it - - not the guy who used to be captain before.
A lot of these things happened during the Clintons' co -presidency , does blowing up Embassy's and ships not count?
In sheer number there were more such incidents during the Clinton watch , especially if you do not count incidents in which the Americans involved were armed and ready to shoot back.
.........and I don't , Americans ready to shoot back is an other category.
-
<<A lot of these things happened during the Clintons' co -presidency , does blowing up Embassys and ships not count?>>
Chickenshit compared to what happened on Bush's watch.
<<In sheer number there were more such incidents during the clinton watch , especially if you do not count incidents in which the Americans invoved were armed nd rady to shoot back.>>
In sheer numbers the people who slip and fall in building lobbies outnumber all the people who died in the WTC attacks. Do you consider slippery floors as big a problem as "terrorism?" Do you think the US government needs to undertake a War on Slippery Floors on at least the same scale as the War on Terrorism?
<<and I don't , Americans read to shot back is an other catagory.>>
This must be a typo of some kind. I just don't get it.
-
<<A lot of these things happened during the Clintons' co -presidency , does blowing up Embassys and ships not count?>>
Chickenshit compared to what happened on Bush's watch.
<<In sheer number there were more such incidents during the clinton watch , especially if you do not count incidents in which the Americans invoved were armed nd rady to shoot back.>>
In sheer numbers the people who slip and fall in building lobbies outnumber all the people who died in the WTC attacks. Do you consider slippery floors as big a problem as "terrorism?" Do you think the US government needs to undertake a War on Slippery Floors on at least the same scale as the War on Terrorism?
<<and I don't , Americans read to shot back is an other catagory.>>
This must be a typo of some kind. I just don't get it.
Sometimes I feel like the king of Typos.
There were a greater number of terror attacks on American soil during the Clinton Watch than the Bush watch, there were more attacks on Americans over seas during the Clinton watch than the Bush watch.
This is especially true if you count Americans who are prepared to fight as a seprate catagory , during the Clinton Presidency mor Americans who were minding their own business were targeted.
The 9-11 attack was a perfect storm for the terrorists , they would have hurt just as many earlyer if they had been just as lucky.
And they are likely to keep trying till they are so lucky again.
-
<<The 9-11 attack was a perfect storm for the terrorists , they would have hurt just as many earlyer if they had been just as lucky.
And they are likely to keep trying till they are so lucky again.>>
Luck had nothing to do with it. The watchmen were asleep on their watch. And the head watchman was George W. Bush.
-
<<The 9-11 attack was a perfect storm for the terrorists , they would have hurt just as many earlyer if they had been just as lucky.
And they are likely to keep trying till they are so lucky again.>>
Luck had nothing to do with it. The watchmen were asleep on their watch. And the head watchman was George W. Bush.
What were the watchmen doing when the Twin towers were bombed in 93?
We were lucky that time that the force required was underestimated.
-
<<What were the watchmen doing when the Twin towers were bombed in 93?
<<We were lucky that time that the force required was underestimated.>>
Coulda woiulda shoulda. Fact is they DIDN'T. Fact is that Clinton had some successes and some failures. Maybe his successes were due to luck or maybe his failures were due to misfortune. Regardless, he finished his watch, and whatever COULDA happened, didn't.
Fact also is, George Bush came on watch and the worst fucking disaster in modern US history took place on his watch. And all he can say is, "Well, it COULDA happened to Clinton?"
Pathetic.
-
As in, No one ever outed Plame. Oh, she was never undercover. Oh...Her HUSBAND Outed her! That's the ticket! Right. She drove in and out of Langley every day, of course she wasn't undercover, how ridiculous. She was just a low-level....
Plame is a Democrat partisan, and her husband is a hack. If she didn't want her name mentioned in the media, she should not have recommended her husband on the mission to Niger. There was no underlying crime in the Libby case. Fitz would have indicted Armatage if "outing" Plame were a crime.
-
<<There was no underlying crime in the Libby case. >>
. . . said he with all the advantage of hindsight.
There's no law that says every investigation HAS to find a crime. When the investigation is in process, the whole point is to find out if a crime has been committed, and if so, who committed it. Surely to God the investigators are entitled to the truth from every person they interview. If lying to investigators becomes rampant, it's obvious they won't find crimes where crimes have been committed, or they could find crimes where none were committed. Lying to the investigators fucks up the investigation. That's pretty basic. So a law was passed: Don't lie to the investigators. It doesn't make an exception for cases where no underlying crime was committed - - a lie could just as well lead them to falsely accuse someone of committing a non-existent crime as it could lead them to falsely accuse someone of committing a real crime.
Why is this concept so hard to grasp? - - that it's an offence to lie to an investigator whether a crime was committed or not. Libby lied to an investigator. He did exactly what the law said he should not do. Wanna change the law? Write your Congressman.
-
Surely to God the investigators are entitled to the truth from every person they interview.
No they are not!
Most emphaticy, they are not!
From now on anyone who is going to talk to a federal agent , especialy a civil servant who does not know of any crime at all , should use is fifth admendment right to say nothing!
There may be no underlying crime , there may be nothing to cover up , but this may not mean that you won't get locked up for not rembering precicely who told you what.
Come on , are you confident that you could tell me with sureity where you first saw the name "Plame" ?
If you can't you deserve the same jail term that Libbey is getting.
-
<<What were the watchmen doing when the Twin towers were bombed in 93?
<<We were lucky that time that the force required was underestimated.>>
Coulda woiulda shoulda. Fact is they DIDN'T. Fact is that Clinton had some successes and some failures. Maybe his successes were due to luck or maybe his failures were due to misfortune. Regardless, he finished his watch, and whatever COULDA happened, didn't.
Fact also is, George Bush came on watch and the worst fucking disaster in modern US history took place on his watch. And all he can say is, "Well, it COULDA happened to Clinton?"
Pathetic.
Yes we were lucky that the first attempt to crash the World Trade center was innefective , the Al Quiea kept trying till they got lucky. We will either kill enough of them to keep them on the run and perhaps eradicate the Al Quieda elese they will keep trying and eventually get lucky again.
President Bush gives the Al Quieda less oppurtunity to attack the US than Clinton did so it may take longer for them to get lucky again.
-
<<No they [Federal investigators]are not! [entitled to the truth from every witness they interview.]
<<. . .
<<From now on anyone who is going to talk to a federal agent , especialy a civil servant who does not know of any crime at all , should use is fifth admendment right to say nothing! >>
You are correct, of course. The witness has a right to remain silent. Even in Canada. What they do not have is a right to lie to the agents.
<<There may be no underlying crime , there may be nothing to cover up , but this may not mean that you won't get locked up for not rembering precicely who told you what.>>
You're not being honest. We've been through this. Libby was NOT convicted for "not remembering." He was convicted for LYING. On the unanimous opinion of twelve individuals who heard all the evidence, listened to all the arguments (including the arguments of Libby's extremely competent defence counsel) deliberated extensively and finished without even ONE of them having one single reasonable doubt. Twist and turn all you like, plane, those are FACTS that you can never spin away.
<<Come on , are you confident that you could tell me with sureity where you first saw the name "Plame" ?
If you can't you deserve the same jail term that Libbey is getting.>>
Come on yourself, that is just such TOTAL bullshit. In the first place, Libby would be a lot more conversant with these things than I am. And again, he was convicted for the lies that he told, not the things he couldn't remember. This was a case about some definite charges and you keep trying to turn it into a case of other charges. Sorry plane, your magic wand just don't have the magic. The case is what it is and all your attempts to re-write it are useless.
-
<<A lot of these things happened during the Clintons' co -presidency , does blowing up Embassys and ships not count?>>
Chickenshit compared to what happened on Bush's watch.
Boy, then FDR had to be the worst President ever, I guess. Oh wait, that would be Lincoln
-
Surely to God the investigators are entitled to the truth from every person they interview.
No they are not!
Most emphaticy, they are not!
====================================
Yes, they are. You do not have to reveal what might implicate YOU, but you are not free to lie to investigators about anything.
Libbey could take the Fifth Amendment about what he knew that might implicate HIM, but not what might implicate Cheney.
-
I doubt Bush could have prevented 911 anymore than Clinton could have prevented the Cole.
That whole tangent is just nonsense. It is a seeking of scapegoats and a distraction.
-
<<I doubt Bush could have prevented 911 anymore than Clinton could have prevented the Cole. >>
This is just more of the "coulda shoulda woulda" BS. The Cole was a non-event. Basically a military target attacked successfully because the commander failed to secure it. It's not Presidential scope-of-responsibility, other than sending it to where it was.
9-11 depended on a lot of things that WERE Presidential responsibility, immigration and border controls, airport security, intelligence and the integration of them all, specifically in this case around airport security. The "President" failed miserably and unaccountably has been given a pass by the supposedly "liberal" (hah!) media.
<<That whole tangent is just nonsense. It is a seeking of scapegoats and a distraction.>>
Well, of course I realize how trivial and unimportant the whole thing is when compared with subjects of such magnitude as an Oval Office blow-job, but still and all I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to call it a mere distraction. After all, SOME people seem to have suffered some really serious losses out of all this, admittedly not nearly as many as were harmed by the former President ejaculating onto a blue dress, but still, some basic consideration of their feelings would seem to be in order.
-
Like i said it is just a distraction and an opportunity for partisan hacks to spew bile.
-
Like I said, it's an indictment that you can't wish away.
-
Until you produce an indictment, you have partisan spewing of bile.
Got one?
-
<<Until you produce an indictment, you have partisan spewing of bile.
<<Got one?>>
Everything I just said against the guy was an indictment. If you mean an actual legal indictment from a Grand Jury, or a Bill of Impeachment, don't make me laugh. Why would I wait for such an indictment when the guy remains immune from prosecution for capital offences like war crimes? Let's try to keep this discussion limited to the real world, shall we? You know and I know that Bush will not be indicted for anything, ever. That's just the way the world is, BT.
-
So really all you are doing is sharing your opinion with us, no matter how unfounded in fact it may be. We certainly thank you for that.
BTW, how could Bush have prevented 9-11?
What draconian measures would have had to have been in place to succeed? And would those measure meet with your approval?
-
<<So really all you are doing is sharing your opinion with us . . . >>
Excuse me, is this not the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University? I must have wandered into the wrong place. Pardon me.
<< . . . no matter how unfounded in fact it may be. >>
Oh, got my facts wrong, did I? Bush was NOT the incumbent President on Sept. 11, 2001? And nothing happened to the WTC on that date? The attack was during the Clinton Administration? And anyway Bush's duties did not include national security? Geeze, I don't know what's come over me. Thanks for pointing it all out to me, though. I sure am embarrassed by my unfounded opinions, but don't we all come here to listen and learn? I'm SO glad you straightened me out on that, BT.
<< We certainly thank you for that. >>
Now, now, BT, easy on the sarcasm. If you please. Everybody makes mistakes, don't they?
<<BTW, how could Bush have prevented 9-11? >>
Oh, I dunno. That's quite a challenge for a poor dumb Canuck like me. Geeze. Increase airport security? Screen for weapons? Take away their little box-cutters? Activate the fighter planes faster? That took me all of about 30 seconds. Even your moronic failure of a "President" should have been able to come up with something in his eight months on the job. In between planning for tax cuts, a little thought on the matter, even HIS kind of thought, surely would have been repaid.
-
::)
-
Seems you have started a list of things Bush could have done.
How about warrant less wiretaps and other means of surveillance? how about instant expulsion of illegal aliens? How about grounding of all air traffic? How about relational databases on all incoming and outgoing communication? Something like the TIA for example.
Should he have implemented those prior to 9-11? Would that have made you happy?
-
I think I suggested some practical, non-obtrusive, effective measures which minimally interfered with people and their rights and were targeted right at the source of the problem.
I think what you suggested were one or more of: blatantly unjust, likely to cause a lot of unnecessary disturbance and unhappiness, blatantly violated privacy rights and would not have been as effective as what I suggested.
My suggestions were eminently practical, yours were not.
Since Bush failed to take ANY of those steps, he bears the blame for 9-11 happening on his watch.
-
Your suggestions were safe, with no guarantee of success.
Certainly my suggestions are more draconian, but they also could be more successful.
Fact is you are demanding the President dig a ditch the size of the Grand Canyon yet limit them to a tool the equivalent of a spoon.
-
Fact is you are demanding the President dig a ditch the size of the Grand Canyon yet limit them to a tool the equivalent of a spoon.
Excellent summation, Bt 8)
-
<<What were the watchmen doing when the Twin towers were bombed in 93?
<<We were lucky that time that the force required was underestimated.>>
Coulda woiulda shoulda. Fact is they DIDN'T. Fact is that Clinton had some successes and some failures. Maybe his successes were due to luck or maybe his failures were due to misfortune. Regardless, he finished his watch, and whatever COULDA happened, didn't.
Fact also is, George Bush came on watch and the worst fucking disaster in modern US history took place on his watch. And all he can say is, "Well, it COULDA happened to Clinton?"
Pathetic.
It still remains a fact that these thingd did occur during the Clintons Presidency , and at a greater rate.
You may not just say " Fact is they DIDN'T" when the fact is that they did.
The first major attack during the Bush presidency occured while Bush was maintaining the same policys twards terrorism that Clinton had had , this doesn't fully excuse Bushes lack of foresight , but only those who actually had the forsight at the time are qualified to criticise it.
And who is that?
-
<<It still remains a fact that these thingd did occur during the Clintons Presidency , and at a greater rate.>>
It's a fact of zero significance because all of the things that occurred on Clinton's watch don't amount to a row of beans when compared with the disaster of Sept. 11. It's as if you had two baby sitters watching a kid and with the first baby sitter the kid got bitten by two dozen mosquitos, stung by a bee and needed six stitches to close a gash in her knee sustained when she tried to climb a chain-link fence and with the second baby sitter the kid got eaten by a bear. When comparing the relative merits of the two baby-sitters, would you say, "It's a fact that all these things did occur under the first baby-sitter and at a greater rate?"
Sure it's a "Fact" - - it's not even a true fact, because in Iraq and Afghanistan the number of attacks on U.S. troops and the number of Americans killed and wounded is a gazillion times more than the number of attacks, killed and wounded under Clinton - - but even if it WERE a true fact, it would be a fact of laughably negligible significance, certainly of no significance to this particular argument.
<<You may not just say " Fact is they DIDN'T" when the fact is that they did.>>
Well, since I'm referring to facts in the real world, I can in fact say "Fact is they DIDN'T." Of course, since you're referring to some fantasy world in which more Americans fell victim to "terrorists" under Clinton than under Bush, I guess maybe I couldn't say what I did.
<<The first major attack during the Bush presidency occured while Bush was maintaining the same policys twards terrorism that Clinton had had . . . >>
Well that's obviously part of the problem, the guy lacked the energy and/or the initiative to improve anything. You obviously can't keep doing the same old thing, particuarly something that you yourself seem to feel was highly ineffective, and expect by some miracle that it will become more effective with repetition.
<< . . . this doesn't fully excuse Bushes lack of foresight>>
Fully excuse? It totally condemns! The guy simply repeated an old and ineffective formula which you yourself say wasn't working.
<< , but only those who actually had the forsight at the time are qualified to criticise it.>>
Huh? The guy's immune from criticism from anyone else who didn't see it coming? That's ridiculous. HE'S the one who ran for President claiming he was qualified for the job. Most of his critics made no such claims for themselves and did not offer themselves as candidates. I sure as hell did not claim to be qualified in foresight to lead the nation, and wouldn't have even if I had legally qualified. On the other hand, I sure as hell can recognize incompetence when I see it. I don't have to know how to play the violin to recognize when an artist botches a piece.
And who is that?
-
<<No they [Federal investigators]are not! [entitled to the truth from every witness they interview.]
<<. . .
<<From now on anyone who is going to talk to a federal agent , especialy a civil servant who does not know of any crime at all , should use is fifth admendment right to say nothing! >>
You are correct, of course. The witness has a right to remain silent. Even in Canada. What they do not have is a right to lie to the agents.
<<There may be no underlying crime , there may be nothing to cover up , but this may not mean that you won't get locked up for not rembering precicely who told you what.>>
You're not being honest. We've been through this. Libby was NOT convicted for "not remembering." He was convicted for LYING. On the unanimous opinion of twelve individuals who heard all the evidence, listened to all the arguments (including the arguments of Libby's extremely competent defence counsel) deliberated extensively and finished without even ONE of them having one single reasonable doubt. Twist and turn all you like, plane, those are FACTS that you can never spin away.
<<Come on , are you confident that you could tell me with sureity where you first saw the name "Plame" ?
If you can't you deserve the same jail term that Libbey is getting.>>
Come on yourself, that is just such TOTAL bullshit. In the first place, Libby would be a lot more conversant with these things than I am. And again, he was convicted for the lies that he told, not the things he couldn't remember. This was a case about some definite charges and you keep trying to turn it into a case of other charges. Sorry plane, your magic wand just don't have the magic. The case is what it is and all your attempts to re-write it are useless.
"You're not being honest. We've been through this. Libby was NOT convicted for "not remembering." He was convicted for LYING. "
Desdribe this lie if you can , I am being honest .
He did not remember correctly remember who in particular had told him what or in what order he had leaned of a TRIVIAL matter from a year previous.
There is not even a suggestion that he knew at the time that Valerie Plame was a covert operative before he had discussed her with a list of reporters who were asking about her.
"Libby would be a lot more conversant with these things than I am."
Then we should pick a thing at random that you must have learned about a year ago and ask you who told you first about it, this would simulate exactly the siuation that Mr. Libbey found himself in.
-
<<He did not remember correctly remember who in particular had told him what or in what order he had leaned of a TRIVIAL matter from a year previous.>>
Look, plane, in the first place, none of this stuff is TRIVIAL. Gossip in Washington is important and secrets abound. If this guy truly did not know, he would have said he didn't know.
I will admit: I didn't read the indictment. This was not a case of one single lie. I believe he told more than one lie to the investigators and was convicted of telling more than one lie.
He was not only convicted of lying. He was also convicted of OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. This is MORE than just lying. It is lying for the purpose of fucking up an official investigation, misleading it somehow. You (the prosecutor) not only has to prove that he told lies but that there was a specific intent to mislead an official investigation.
You didn't hear all the evidence. I didn't hear all the evidence. You didn't read the indictments upon which he was convicted, which would answer your question, "What lies did he tell?" very precisely. Nor did I.
All I know is that a jury of 12 peers - - which his own lawyers (unlike ours) had every opportunity to cross-examine at length before admitting them into the jury box, and every opportunity to challenge for cause - - heard all of the evidence on each of the charges, heard all of the arguments that you made and probably more that you didn't make, pro and con, and on the numerous counts on which he was convicted, both lying to a Federal investigator AND obstructing justice, had between all twelve of them not one single reasonable doubt on ANY of the charges for which he was convicted.
And OTOH, you - - not even having read the particulars of each charge, not having listened to all of the evidence, not having heard all of the arguments - - are convinced that the jury was wrong.
And that - - IMHO - - is just plain nuts. Or just plain partisan biased; against all reason.
P.S. after posting this I found the indictment at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf