Being wrong score card
Roxxanne 1
mysteryman 182,273
Amigo wrote:Being wrong score card
Roxxanne 1
mysteryman 182,273
Since I have only posted a little over 2000 times,then I cant have been wrong as often as you say.
Also,do you want to go thru every one of my posts and see exactly how often I might have been wrong?
I am flattered that you think that highly of me that you are keeping a close eye on everything I write.
I didnt know that you thought I was that important.
Amigo wrote:Being wrong score card
Roxxanne 1
mysteryman 182,273
Make that 182,274. Being sure means 100% probabity. 95% means highly likely but not sure. But what can one expect from someone whose writing style and punctuation equals the ofan elementary school drop-out.
And I wasn't wrong, Rove escaped by the skin of his teeth and may have made a deal to escape prosecution. It was highly likely that Rove would be indicted. The fact that he hasn't been yet, doesn't change that fact.
Ticomaya wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:And I never said I was sure that Rove would be indicted.
When you were posing as "Chrissee," you were willing to bet $25,000 that Rove would be indicted.
I never posted as "Chrissee" Stop lying.
Roxxxanne wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:And I never said I was sure that Rove would be indicted.
When you were posing as "Chrissee," you were willing to bet $25,000 that Rove would be indicted.
I never posted as "Chrissee" Stop lying.
But you did say "But it is coming, bet the farm!"
I posted your exact words,so you did say you were sure it would happen.
It didnt,so now you are trying to say you didnt say it.
Guess what,your claim that it would happen is recorded for posterity,for everyone to see.
BTW,as for my punctuation,I do it that way because I know it annoys you.
Thats the only reason.
Novak was on "Meet the Press" this morning, and I believe I saw/heard him dissembling. He certainly was doing a lot of retracting of things he previously said.
ticomaya is only a lowyer.
Novak presents a different picture on Meet the Press than on Fox. I wonder why?
It is interesting how the folks on the right love and believe the sleaze Novak, who outed one of our spys. But they hate the NYT that outed an illegal NSA program. Illegal programs, BTW, are not classifyable.
It is obvious Plame was a superb spy and a great asset to this country. Just look at her and you will see that any man will give up to her any information he has.
When do the Valerie and Joe Action Figures come out in the stores? I am sure they'll have them out before Christmas. I just hope it will be before Fitzmas.
(From a blog.)
Novak continues to lie and mislead on Meet the Press. This is an excerpt from a piece in Mediamatters.org.
During the interview, Russert and Novak placed heavy significance on when and where Novak first learned Plame's name. But in the context of the leak investigation, Plame's name is insignificant. The public disclosure of Plame's identity as a CIA employee and the potential damage caused by that disclosure were the basis for the CIA's referral of the matter to the Justice Department to begin with, and the basis for the lawsuit Wilson and Plame filed against Cheney, Libby, and Rove. Media Matters for America found that even at the time Novak wrote his column disclosing her identity, Plame's name could have been obtained through a quick Google search, as it was listed on Wilson's biography on the Corporate & Public Strategy Advisory Group's website in July 2003. Novak himself said that he came across Plame's name simply by checking Wilson's Who's Who in America listing, a fact that he cited in his July 12 column and in subsequent appearances to exculpate his sources -- they didn't actually provide her name -- when by his own account, their intent in identifying Wilson's wife at all was to suggest (falsely, according to the CIA) that by virtue of her job with the CIA , she was in a position to recommend him for the trip to Niger. Whether she went by "Mrs. Wilson" or something else was presumably not relevant to their purported goal of raising questions about Wilson's credibility and qualifications for the assignment. Whether or not her actual name was used was also not relevant to the question of whether outing "Wilson's wife" as a CIA employee compromised the operations of the CIA. Even Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, and attorney Victoria Toensing, a vocal defender and friend of Novak's, have acknowledged that public disclosure of Plame's name had no bearing on whether the leakers had violated the law.
Nonetheless, Novak suggested repeatedly that the issue of whether his sources provided Plame's name was relevant to their culpability in disclosing her identity, and Russert did nothing to counter his assertions. Russert quoted the July 22, 2003, Newsday article in which Novak was quoted saying that his sources thought Plame's identity was "significant" -- a statement that appears to conflict with Novak's later claims that his source disclosed the information in an "offhanded" and "inadvertent" manner. Novak responded not by addressing the apparent inconsistency -- saying that, first, his sources thought Plame's identity was significant and, later, that they disclosed it offhandedly -- but by stating, irrelevantly, that administration officials did not tell him Plame's name: "I was wrong when I said they came to me. ... I mean, when I said that they gave me the name, because I got the name from, from Who's Who in America." By focusing on Plame's name, Novak completely sidestepped the question of whether the disclosure of Plame's identity was deliberate or inadvertent. Russert asked five follow-up questions on the issue of when and where Novak learned her name.
Here is an interesting analysis of the Wilsons' chances in court. It does not bode well for them.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/17/plame.lawsuit.tm/
Before they can have a case, the congress and/or supreme court should rule on this kind of issue where the release of the name of a CIA agent is the real issue, since there are already laws that rules against it.
Why should our government allow the executive branch to act in tyrany freely just because they "work in the government?" This congress has failed in their balance of power responsibilities by allowing this administration to perform illegal wiretaps.
Laws for and by our government seems to be impotent.
Congress is impotent. And it appears that even the justice system is impotent unless and until someone brings a particular matter to court in a formal fashion.
Witness how long, and for what specific reasons, it took for the Supreme Court to voice its opinion about Gitmo and military tribunals in general?
I agree with Bush Sr. that outing a CIA agent is treason. The White House certainly provided aid and comfort to our enemies when it outed Valerie Plame. It is a pity that Fitz lacks the guts to pursue this line of prosecution.
Here is another good analysis of the Wilsons' chances in court.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060721_segal.html
Taking the liberty of quoting some brief passages of relevance:
Quote:Fortunately, the Court has different rules for conduct that is public, and not private. Thus, Cheney can argue that vice presidents should be immune from suit under the doctrine of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a 1982 decision recognizing "absolute Presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his official responsibility." Here, even if Cheney did act improperly, he did so in his capacity as one of the Administration's chief advocates for war in Iraq. This capacity probably falls within the "outer perimeter" of Cheney's official responsibilities, which means Cheney arguably should be entitled to immunity.
Winning a suit against Libby and Rove might also be an uphill battle. Because Libby and Rove are public officials, the Wilsons can't win unless they can show Libby and Rove violated their constitutional rights. That won't be easy.
The lawsuit alleges, for example, that the defendants violated the First Amendment by disclosing Plame's identity as retaliation for Wilson's criticism of the Administration. But, as Akhil Reed Amar has observed in Slate, the alleged retaliation was itself speech arguably protected by the First Amendment. In the end, it's probably a stretch to say that a third-party's constitutional rights can be violated simply by talking to reporters--even if classified information about the third party is disclosed.
Discovery Might Succeed Even If the Lawsuit Itself Fails--But Should It?
But even if the lawsuit were ultimately to be dismissed, some civil discovery might happen before then--meaning the defendants will have to answer interrogatories, produce documents, and give sworn deposition testimony.
That seems to be just what the Wilsons are hoping for. In a July 17 interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, for instance, Joseph Wilson conceded that, in light of Novak's recent column, Novak's initial disclosure of Plame's identity might not have been the result of a plot to out her. But he also insisted that some in the Administration did tell reporters about Plame's CIA affiliation as part of a "vendetta." "Hopefully when we go through discovery we'll be able to learn some of this," he said.
Bush apologists have a selective hearing disability; they forgve Bush for saying "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."
cicerone imposter wrote:Bush apologists have a selective hearing disability; they forgve Bush for saying "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."
Why would he need to be forgiven for saying that? It appears "the person" has not "violated law," doesn't it?
