8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2007 03:22 pm
okie wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
okie wrote:
[Gungasnake, thanks for the informative post.

Well, it was, do you have a problem with information? Perhaps if you have the final scoop on the anthrax, please let us in on it. Until then, perhaps you aren't but I am interested in pertinent information.


It wasn't informational at all, it was delusional.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2007 04:12 pm
You really do have serious problems, don't you Roxxxanne? I am not being totally sarcastic here. I have come to realize just what a basket case you must be. I wish you a happy Thanksgiving, if you can. I suggest you get some help, really. Again, not entirely sarcastic, I think you need help to try to alleviate the extreme anger and unhappiness you must live with everyday.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2007 04:18 pm
okie wrote:
You really do have serious problems, don't you Roxxxanne? I am not being totally sarcastic here. I have come to realize just what a basket case you must be. I wish you a happy Thanksgiving, if you can. I suggest you get some help, really. Again, not entirely sarcastic, I think you need help to try to alleviate the extreme anger and unhappiness you must live with everyday.


You are projecting again, okie, my angry little, insecure, insignificant man.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2007 05:07 pm
HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL!
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2007 05:25 pm
okie wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
okie wrote:
[Gungasnake, thanks for the informative post.

Well, it was, do you have a problem with information? Perhaps if you have the final scoop on the anthrax, please let us in on it. Until then, perhaps you aren't but I am interested in pertinent information.


I have no problem with information.

Do a little research. There is information out there. Trusting GSnake to provide any legit info is simply dangerous.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2007 05:32 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
okie wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
okie wrote:
[Gungasnake, thanks for the informative post.

Well, it was, do you have a problem with information? Perhaps if you have the final scoop on the anthrax, please let us in on it. Until then, perhaps you aren't but I am interested in pertinent information.


It wasn't informational at all, it was delusional.


You ever been outta SanFran??
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2007 05:36 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
okie wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
okie wrote:
[Gungasnake, thanks for the informative post.

Well, it was, do you have a problem with information? Perhaps if you have the final scoop on the anthrax, please let us in on it. Until then, perhaps you aren't but I am interested in pertinent information.


It wasn't informational at all, it was delusional.


You ever been outta SanFran??


Sure she has.
It wasnt to long ago that she went on her honeymoon, remember.
Of course, a few days later she had a new girlfriend.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2007 09:39 pm
You guys here won't see the significance of this story...the further erosion of american citizens' trust in this administration (and in the modern conservative movement generally, by association if nothing else). You are too invested in what you believe.

But you guys really don't matter. You aren't representative. I expect you look at a graph of Bush's popularity/credibility ratings (steadily down for three years now) and think "well, it will turn around" or "the liberal press did it". Or you'll look at what happened in the last election and think "Pshaw...just you wait!"

You aren't typical, boys. You are out on the edge attending to the same comfortable and supportive sources. I don't think you really understand at all what is coming your way.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Nov, 2007 09:40 am
I was happy, and somewhat amazed, that Huckabee considers McClelland's revalations of the utmost importance, deserving investigation. This is from the guy who doesn't believe in evolution.

MM, I still say that the leakers committed treason.


November 21, 2007 at 18:43:17

Are Bush and Cheney guilty of treason?

by Carol Wolman Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com





US Constitution Article 3 Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

On Sept 20th, 2001, George W. Bush announced a "war on terror". "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html


If we are engaged in a war on terrorist groups, then anyone who gives aid and comfort to terrorist groups is an enemy.

One major aim of terrorist groups is to get hold of weapons of mass destruction, in order to better terrorize a target population, such as the people of the US.

At the time Bush gave his speech, Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent, running an international ring of CIA assets, whose job was tracking WMD's through world black markets and preventing them from falling into the hands of terrorists. Two years later, her undercover identity was leaked to the press. Her outing did serious and lasting damage.

Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to "ten years" in its capacity to adequately monitor nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson's identity. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Outed_CIA_officer_was_working_on_0213.html
In other words, the outing of Valerie Plame made it much easier for "every terrorist group of global reach" to acquire WMD's.

Thus, the outing of Valerie Plame gave aid and comfort to terrorist groups.

In other words, whoever "leaked" her undercover CIA identity to the press gave aid and comfort to terrorist groups, by making it easier for them to acquire WMD's.

OUTING VALERIE PLAME WAS AN ACT OF TREASON.

"Scooter" Libby took the fall for the administration on the Plame outing, after being convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice by Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury. Bush suspended his sentence, so he did no jail time.

Now Scott McClelland, who was presidential spokesman at the time, tells us that both Bush and Cheney were directly involved into misleading him, Scott McClelland, into telling the press that no one in the White House did the outing of Plame.

In other words, Bush and Cheney are co-conspirators in the outing of Plame, or at least in the coverup and obstruction of justice. They have both committed treason.

If Congress does not impeach them immediately, then the whole Congress is guilty of treason.

When the 2008 election comes around, We the People should turn out of office any Representative who has not cosponsored HR 333/799- to impeach Cheney.

We're forming a New Broom Coalition, for a clean sweep of Congress. If you, or someone you know, is running for Congress on an impeachment platform, please contact us through our website: http://sances.info/newbroom/
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Nov, 2007 10:04 am
Advocate wrote:

MM, I still say that the leakers committed treason.


November 21, 2007 at 18:43:17

Are Bush and Cheney guilty of treason?

by Carol Wolman Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com





US Constitution Article 3 Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

On Sept 20th, 2001, George W. Bush announced a "war on terror". "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html




According to the Constitution, they did not commit treason.
You even posted the relevant clause.
Are you now saying that what the constitution says doesnt matter?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Nov, 2007 10:16 am
MM, I think the provision is met. Please say why it is not met.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Nov, 2007 10:31 am
I keep telling you.. waterboard Bush in open court and he will confess to treason thus meeting the requirements.

I see no reason why we can't do it since it is nothing more than a simple interrogation.

Unless someone wants to argue that waterboarding violates the constitution.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Nov, 2007 09:44 pm
parados, Excellent idea! Since Bush doesn't consider waterboarding as torture, he can submit himself in a court of law and give his honest response. He wouldn't have to say a word; picture worth a thousand words.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 07:49 am
Bush's handlers probably told him that a waterboard is the same as a surfboard, on which he could hang ten.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 08:50 am
Washington Post and New York Times have been truly pathetic (again) on their coverage of McClellan's excerpted statement. With friends like this (liberal press?!...yee gods!) who needs enemies?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 11:51 am
They cannot print the truth because the people can't handle the truth. It would be financial suicide.

Look at how the Nixon thing was handled. The highest position in the land breaks law after law and they let him go. What kind of example was that?

The system is broken, badly broken; in fact these two situations illustrate that it never had the capacity to work. It was badly flawed from the beginning. When the test arose [and it has arisen yet again], it flunked. Same thing is happening this time.

The rule of law, my ass.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 12:17 pm
christ in shitty napkins...what could be more predictable than a townhall headline...
Quote:
Aides Choose Royalties Over Loyalties
http://www.townhall.com/
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 08:18 pm
TownHall.com chooses deception over truth. Do the people at this site purport to be journalists? They pulled a foofie.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 11:15 am
from a hundred miles away, we saw this newsmax headline coming...
Quote:

Is McCellan Cashing-in with Book?
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Is_McClellan_Cashing-in_/2007/11/23/51639.html
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 05:33 pm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 08:28:55