8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 04:44 pm
teenyboone wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie is too far gone to understand that a crime was committed by the Bush administration. Too bad Fitzgerald turned out to be a Bush puppet; he didn't do his job (incompetence seems normal to this administration).

Not just of this administration, but it's clear too, that the Democrats are "willing" accomplices! They stand on the sidelines and yell, yeah, give it to the Repugs, while they all vote the same way, give the Pres. what he wants and they talk out of both sides of their mouths! I'm sick of all of them, including Obama, Clinton and Pelosi! They all suck, as far as I'm concerned. There ARE no "lessers", here; they ALL belong to the SAME club! We just don't get it! As far as alternatives, I wonder whose paying THEM to run?
Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 07:16 pm
Advocate wrote:
okie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Advocate, You are correct; just because a secret is revealed before, it doesn't make subsequent revelations free of crime.

Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent, ci. I hereby let everyone know that. I will be waiting here to be arrested for my crime.
Laughing

By the way, we have finally transported WMD components or materials out of Iraq, the country that had no WMD materials, after all Hussein did not have a program, according to Joe Wilson and obviously would not have wanted to buy yellowcake from Niger, it had to be something else that Niger had that Iraq was interested in. Wilson proved that when he went to Niger and had tea with some officials there, right?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5314609


Okie, you are safe. Her ID was already covered in the media thanks to those treasonous bastards in the White House.


And again you seem to want to use the word "treason" anyway you see fit.
It is not a catchall term, it has a specific legal definition.
As a matter of fact, its the ONLY crime defined in the Constitution.

You need to familiarize yourself with the Condtitutional definition, then you will see that nothing in the whole Plame mes fit the legal definition of treason.

So, to aid in your education, I refer you to article 3, section 3 of the Constitution...

Quote:
Section 3 - Treason Note

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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

So, someone revealed her name, on that we agree.
Was it a crime?
Not according to the special prosecutor tasked to investigate.

Was it treason??
According to the Constitution...absolutely NOT!!!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 09:40 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Advocate wrote:
okie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Advocate, You are correct; just because a secret is revealed before, it doesn't make subsequent revelations free of crime.

Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent, ci. I hereby let everyone know that. I will be waiting here to be arrested for my crime.
Laughing

By the way, we have finally transported WMD components or materials out of Iraq, the country that had no WMD materials, after all Hussein did not have a program, according to Joe Wilson and obviously would not have wanted to buy yellowcake from Niger, it had to be something else that Niger had that Iraq was interested in. Wilson proved that when he went to Niger and had tea with some officials there, right?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5314609


Okie, you are safe. Her ID was already covered in the media thanks to those treasonous bastards in the White House.


And again you seem to want to use the word "treason" anyway you see fit.
It is not a catchall term, it has a specific legal definition.
As a matter of fact, its the ONLY crime defined in the Constitution.

"to aid in your education", the US Constitution does NOT own the word 'treason'. In fact, it has only borrowed it and then limited it for its own specific purposes. Advocate, a native speaker of English, used the word perfectly in keeping with the language.

"to aid further in your education", 'treason' and 'treasonous' are different parts of speech and nobody but a dad-blamed fool, or you, would run to the US Con.... to derive the meaning of either.



0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:24 am
JTT, just a suggestion, learn how to quote people and then answer it outside the quote box, not inside it. Enough of the red already, as sometimes people you are quoting also use red, so simply using red does not necessarily make it clear about who is saying it. In other words, it is tacky to make it look like your opinion is part of somebody else's quote.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 01:17 pm
teenyboone wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie is too far gone to understand that a crime was committed by the Bush administration. Too bad Fitzgerald turned out to be a Bush puppet; he didn't do his job (incompetence seems normal to this administration).

Not just of this administration, but it's clear too, that the Democrats are "willing" accomplices! They stand on the sidelines and yell, yeah, give it to the Repugs, while they all vote the same way, give the Pres. what he wants and they talk out of both sides of their mouths! I'm sick of all of them, including Obama, Clinton and Pelosi! They all suck, as far as I'm concerned. There ARE no "lessers", here; they ALL belong to the SAME club! We just don't get it! As far as alternatives, I wonder whose paying THEM to run?


Teeney, you are being silly. The Reps controlled all three branches of the govt. for six years, and still control two. Give the Dems such power and you will see some great improvements.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 01:24 pm
Advocate, I'm gonna have to disagree with you and agree with teenyboone on this one. The democrats have been voting with the GOP to fund the wars in Iraq when the majority of Americans want our troops to start coming home. They are kow-towing to Bush demands to continue this war against the wishes of the American People.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 01:27 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Advocate, I'm gonna have to disagree with you and agree with teenyboone on this one. The democrats have been voting with the GOP to fund the wars in Iraq when the majority of Americans want our troops to start coming home. They are kow-towing to Bush demands to continue this war against the wishes of the American People.


The Reps had the votes to back Bush. Those opposing Bush were Dems. At present, the Dems have insufficient votes to defeat Bush's vetoes.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 01:31 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jun27/0,4670,CongressRdp,00.html

Congress passes Iraq war spending bill
Friday, June 27, 2008

WASHINGTON ? The Senate passed a $162 billion war spending plan
Thursday, sending to President Bush legislation that will pay for
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan until the next president takes
office.

The package, approved 92-6, includes a doubling of GI Bill college
benefits for troops and veterans. It also provides a 13-week extension
of unemployment benefits and $2.7 billion in emergency flood relief
for the Midwest.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 01:31 pm
Only 6 democrats in the Senate? News to me!
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 01:49 pm
The troops have to be supported, so the bill is the best that could be passed at this point. Legislation that required the funds to be used only for pulling out would result in a veto, which could not be overridden.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 02:14 pm
So? Let Bush veto the bill. He then has absolutely no way to continue his war in Iraq; no more money.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 02:26 pm
So you would let the troops go without food and other supplies, and get picked off by the enemy.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 02:31 pm
Quit the dramatics; you know as well as anyone that the congress can approve funding for food and other necessary needs to remove our troops from Iraq. As a matter of fact, those funding may have already been approved.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 02:40 pm
Advocate wrote:
So you would let the troops go without food and other supplies, and get picked off by the enemy.


I agree with CI, that this is a little melodramatic.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 02:52 pm
Do you actually believe that Bush would not veto such a bill?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 02:53 pm
Advocate wrote:
Do you actually believe that Bush would not veto such a bill?


So what if he does? The money doesn't flow if he vetoes the spending bill.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 03:02 pm
Right, and the food and supplies don't flow to the troops.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 04:14 pm
Advocate wrote:
Right, and the food and supplies don't flow to the troops.


Nope, they don't. The troops will have to withdraw from the theater.

What, you think they are just going to sit around and starve and get shot? That their commanders don't know what they are doing? Bull. There have been plenty of times in history when the money for wars dried up and the troops were pulled back as a result; the idea that these troops are somehow hostages to unlimited and never-ending spending is bullshit.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 04:25 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Right, and the food and supplies don't flow to the troops.


Nope, they don't. The troops will have to withdraw from the theater.

What, you think they are just going to sit around and starve and get shot? That their commanders don't know what they are doing? Bull. There have been plenty of times in history when the money for wars dried up and the troops were pulled back as a result; the idea that these troops are somehow hostages to unlimited and never-ending spending is bullshit.

Cycloptichorn



The troops would have to flee ASAP, which would make us look great.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 04:31 pm
Advocate wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Right, and the food and supplies don't flow to the troops.


Nope, they don't. The troops will have to withdraw from the theater.

What, you think they are just going to sit around and starve and get shot? That their commanders don't know what they are doing? Bull. There have been plenty of times in history when the money for wars dried up and the troops were pulled back as a result; the idea that these troops are somehow hostages to unlimited and never-ending spending is bullshit.

Cycloptichorn



The troops would have to flee ASAP, which would make us look great.


Um, how do you think we look right now?!@?!!!

Christ, you want to keep paying for this war, keep having our troops killed - to protect our image? What the hell is wrong with you, that this is your priority - how things look?

Jeez

Cycloptichorn
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 06/26/2024 at 02:20:49