1st deny, then minimize, then ridicule

[BT]

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?

[Michael Tee]

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.

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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       

[Plane]

<<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?

[Michael Tee]

<<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?

[Plane]

<<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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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