Liberals are up in arms about this whole Libby story. Libby is being punished for giving inaccurate information, which basically means he "had a bad memory"
I have mentioned before, if I was questioned about something I said or did 2 weeks ago I would be in jail, as would most of you. Lets not forget how bad a memory your hero Bill Clinton has: (and yes, it is relivant to bring up Bill Clinton to show the hypocracy of the Left. You defended him and to this day say what a great President he was. It is not my fault it is so easy to show how terrible he was)
FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.
I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2
I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1I'm just not sure - 1Nothing that I remember - 1I simply don't know - 1I would have no idea - 1I don't know anything about that - 1I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1 I just don't know - 1I really don't know - 1I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1
Sunday, July 08, 2007
How soon we forget
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
Yadda, yadda, fuckin' yadda. Bill Clinton is not president now. Bill Clinton has not been president for 6 and a half years. Bill Clinton was investigated even before he took the oath of office - over and over and over to the tune of over $52 MILLION dollars according to your citation. Bill Clinton was impeached. Bill Clinton left office with something like a 60% approval rating.
George W. Bush is president now. Bush is the only president accused of using cocaine. All the rest, the war, the deficit, the corruption has been discussed.
Your Clenis envy is showing.
You can't remember conversations you had two weeks ago?
Seriously? Game, that's not normal. Maybe you should go see a neurologist.
you might be right chet...
"and yes, it is relivant to bring up Bill Clinton to show the hypocracy of the Left. You defended him and to this day say what a great President he was. It is not my fault it is so easy to show how terrible he was)"
Not really, because the motivation for commuting Libby's sentence were entirely different.
Since the sentence was commuted, the case is still active. Therefore, Libby cannot be questioned in court, because he can just say answering would adversely impact his case.
He'll be pardoned when and only when he can't do damage to the Bush Crime Family's operations.
In the interim, Thompson set up a fund to pay his "legal expenses", which will result in a tidy nest egg, and will carry him over (a "loyalty bond", if you will) to the next successive administration.
These sort of machinations (and malicious intent toward justice and the American people) far transcend the intent and motivation of anything that Clinton had ever done.
It's like comparing Gerald Ford to Idi Amin.
I love the spin! Keep it up guys!
Before long, once you get your marching orders from the liberal media, you'll be telling us Hillary was against the war before she was for it.
Jim, Chet, Hashfanatic,
I guess the lack of substance in their counter-argument means that you guys won it again. Great job!
realism--
Substance? All I'm hearing lately is how people loved the Clintons, and how they hate Bush. The word you're looking for is feelings.
Now, on the Scooter thing, you guys are completely overreacting. One, comparatively Libby's sentence was clearly excessive. Sandy Burglar got fined 50K and received 100hr community service for shredding docs related to Clinton and terrorism in the National Archive. Libby never should have been in court in the first place, given Saddam did try to obtain yellowcake from Niger (hence making Joe Wilson a liar), and it was Armitage who leaked to the press.
Secondly, Democrats who support Hillary, which will be all of you eventually, have no basis of complaint. The Clintons handed out pardons to 16 terrorists so Hillary, who is from the Chicago suburbs, could pander to New York Puerto Ricans. Don't forget about Hugh Rodham's buddies getting pardoned after he received 400K. Or consider Marc Rich-- the Clintons were less motivated by love for Scooter Libby and more by the donations to the DNC and the Clinton Library by Mrs. Rich. And let's not forget Clinton never went to jail for, uh, perjury.
Really, why should I take you guys seriously?
wow, those are facts and a well reasoned arguement...how are the liberals here going to combat that...
Oh, I know...more clever name calling they saw on DailyKos...brilliant!!!
Jason, the key factor that you're leaving out (and a talisman of why your philosophy is dead, and why you are out of touch with the majority of the American people) is that there's a world of difference between pardoning Scooter Libby, and the Clinton pardons (even though I believe NO president should have the right to pardon).
If you can't see the danger that Scooter Libby and this travesty of justice can do to this republic, versus all the other pardons combined, you're just throwing reality under the bus for the sake of partisanship and convenience.
That's why Americans get the danger of neocon allegiance to capitalist cronyism, and the danger it poses to each and every one of them.
They GET it now.
They've seen the culture of corruption in full effect. For YEARS.
And they want something better from government.
Game, Libby wasn't in trouble because he said "I don't recall." Libby was in trouble when he told the FBI (even before Fitzgerald was involved) that he learned Plame's name from Tim Russert, when that was demonstrably false. Libby was in trouble when he lied to the grand jury about what the OVP knew and when they knew it. It wasn't a matter of Libby not remembering; it was matter of Libby deliberately giving false statements to throw off investigators and not implicate his boss.
Jason, the truth or falsity of Joe Wilson's op-ed (or leaks to Kristoff and Pincus) is not what started the investigation. It started because the CIA was upset that someone leaked the name and professional identity of one of its top counter-proliferation officers.
Besides, Joe Wilson did not lie. You say this:
Libby never should have been in court in the first place, given Saddam did try to obtain yellowcake from Niger (hence making Joe Wilson a liar).
Wilson would only be a liar if he said that Iraq didn't "try" to obtain uranium from Niger. But Wilson said in his report (see the SSCI report) that there had been a meeting in 1999 between an Iraqi and Niger. What his report said--seconded by the US ambassador to Niger and the State Department--was that there is no way that a sale had happened or would be possible.
If you don't know what Wilson actually said, don't call him a liar--that just makes you look stupid, and I know you're not.
Also, Jason, you write, " it was Armitage who leaked to the press." This implies that it was only Armitage who leaked to the press, and that is false. Libby, Rove, and at least one or two others talked to the press about Plame, her job, and Joe Wilson. In fact, if Time hadn't sat for a few days on Matt Cooper's story--filed before Novak's column--we'd be talking about Rove as "the leaker" and Cooper and Time as "the press."
wow, those are facts and a well reasoned arguement
Except almost everything he said is either demonstrably false or an unprovable assertion.
sentence was clearly excessive. Clearly by whose standards? It was obviously within guidelines and could have been mitigated if Libby had shown any remorse. Many examples of perjury convictions with the same or longer sentences have been shown.
for shredding docs related to Clinton and terrorism in the National Archive. This again (and again and again) has been explained, demonstrated, and proved to you that it is FALSE. Burger destroyed no documents. He destroyed copies. Period.
Libby never should have been in court in the first place, given Saddam did try to obtain yellowcake from Niger (hence making Joe Wilson a liar) This is a non-sequitor; one thing is not relevant to the other. Also, not sure that Wilson claimed that Saddam didn't try to buy yellowcake. Wilson claimed that given the international controls on the sale of yellowcake, to take any attempt by Saddam to obtain it from Niger seriously is laughable.
and it was Armitage who leaked to the press. No, it was Armitage who leaked to Novak and Woodward. It was Libby who leaked to Miller and Cooper before Novak published his story.
The rest, just more Clenis did it yadda, yadda, fuckin' yadda. Most pardons are sleazy.
And the FALN who were pardoned spent YEARS in jail and were not convicted of committing any violent acts.
Really, why should I take you guys seriously?
'Cuz we're smarter than you, Jim.
Wilson did lie. His story was to rebut statements made by Bush about Hussein's intention to gain materials to complete his nuclear plans. Saying that a sale from Niger would be impossible or didn't happen doesn't refute the argument that Husseing tried. But here's the kicker. Bush said that according to British sources, Hussein was attempting to gain said materials from "African" nations. There are at least two others where that could be done and the Congo actually provides the best possibility with it's internal strife making such purchases easier. But that's only one of the lies in his op-ed that kicked off this whole episode. He also said Cheney sent him to Niger, and there's something about a forged-document he said he saw which, I think, never existed. All in all, it would seem that there should have been some charges brought regarding slander or libel (I confuse those two terms).
Marshall, wrong on all counts. Have you actually read what Joe Wilson wrote?
Bush said that according to British sources, Hussein was attempting to gain said materials from "African" nations.
Wilson: Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.
Where's the lie?
He also said Cheney sent him to Niger
Wilson: In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
Where's the lie?
and there's something about a forged-document he said he saw which, I think, never existed.
The Senate Select Intelligence Committee: Even after obtaining the forged documents and being alerted by a State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analyst about problems with them, analysts at both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not examine them carefully enough to see the obvious problems with the documents. Both agencies continued to publish assessments that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa. In addition, CIA continued to approve the use of similar language in Administration publications and speeches, including the State of the Union.
Where's the lie? (Note from above that Wilson also never claimed to have seen the docs.)
I keep saying this, over and over, and over the frick again: You shouldn't call Joe Wilson a liar based on what you think he said. Because even the most cursory examination of what he really said will prove you to be the liar.
One, comparatively Libby's sentence was clearly excessive.
To the contrary; it was completely within federal sentencing guidelines. By comparison, Victor Rita, a decorated American serviceman, was sentenced to a 33-month sentence for perjury and making false statements that was upheld in June by the Supreme Court.
And, granting for a moment your specious argument that Libby's sentence was "excessive"; how does that justify no prison at all? Paris Hilton served more time than Scooter Libby ever will. Even if 30 months is "excessive", why not commute the term to 20 months? Or 10? Or even 1? You're saying that any prison time at all is excessive for obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to investigators; yet, many people are currently serving time in prison for precisely these crimes.
The Clintons handed out pardons to 16 terrorists so Hillary
Remember when I rebutted this nonsense before? You guys don't seem to remember too well.
None of the 16 people commuted (and they were commuted, not pardoned) were ever implicated in any crime except property damage, and they each served more than 20 years for their crimes - far more than their crimes would otherwise justify. Just referring to them as "terrorists" without linking them to any terrorist act isn't an argument; it's an appeal to emotion.
And let's not forget Clinton never went to jail for, uh, perjury.
Indeed. He was found innocent.
Saying that a sale from Niger would be impossible or didn't happen doesn't refute the argument that Husseing tried.
But it certainly eliminates it as a causus belli. I mean, I'm sure Saddam also wanted the magic Tooth Fairy to drop off a few bombs in the middle of the night, but the fact that he put a few teeth under his pillow doesn't justify 3500 American casualties - including my best friend - and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, in addition to the expenditure of billions.
See, that's the problem with conservatism. It's all about who can be construed as a "liar" - and it's never about the facts and the big picture. Sure, we can't prove that Saddam didn't want uranium from Niger and that he didn't make a phone call or whatever to see about getting some.
But the fact that it was impossible for him to ever receive any meant that the inspection regime was working, that there was no need to invade to disrupt Saddam's nuclear program - because it was already a non-starter.
This is what you expect us to believe constitutes "being smarter," Marshall? You've got to be kidding us.
When confronted with facts, Marshall and Jason turn tail and run.
Again, Libby's sentence was excessive, and the Clintonistas here are complete hypocrites.
The Rita case proves my point. Victor Rita was sentenced five years probation for making false statements about a purchase of guns in 1986. When he did it a second time, then he got the 33mo sentence. Clearly you're not suggesting that we drop the fine on Libby and just give him probation, eh?
Jeez you people make this easy.
My charges of Democrat hypocrisy also still stand. None of you, wisely I may add, have gone to bat for Marc Rich and Hugh Rodham's buddies.
Consider Clinton pardoning members of a Puerto Rican terrorist organization (yes, they were FALN members) so his wife could pander to brainless leftists in New York. Congress condemned the action 95-2 in the Senate, and 311-41 in the House. Of course, diehards like chet believe the Clintons pardoned them for the common good. Who is being partisan here?
Libby was not charged with breaking the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and neither was Armitage. So we have here a non-illegal leak. And yes, Clinton **was** fined $90,000 for giving intentionally false testimony, which makes Scooter's current fine still excessive, and you people hypocrites.
Bush did the honorable thing.
Again, Libby's sentence was excessive, and the Clintonistas here are complete hypocrites.
"Clintonistas"? Nice, but I don't see how ad hominem helps you prove your points.
Clearly you're not suggesting that we drop the fine on Libby and just give him probation, eh?
A fine he's not actually ever going to have to pay? Why not drop it?
You still haven't defended the position that three felony convictions for obstructing justice and lying to investigators merits absolutely no sentence whatsoever - or why, if the punishment is so outlandish, nobody's talking about changing the federal sentencing guidelines - which, again, Libby's sentence was completely consistent with.
My charges of Democrat hypocrisy also still stand. None of you, wisely I may add, have gone to bat for Marc Rich and Hugh Rodham's buddies.
I don't understand how that's hypocritical. We've come out and said that, like every president since Nixon, Clinton abused his pardon authority. We criticized him then - at least, I did - and we're not supporting it now. The FALN guys are actually a case of a justifiable commutation; their sentence was not supported by their crimes - which were basically vandalism.
Of course, diehards like chet believe the Clintons pardoned them for the common good.
Oh, I get it. You've forgotten essentially everything I told you last week.
I didn't vote for Clinton, remember? In either election. I voted for Bush in 2000 because I was a conservative. When I realized that all conservatism was is basically what you're doing now - casting around nonsense "facts" and personal accusations - I wised up.
Libby was not charged with breaking the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and neither was Armitage. So we have here a non-illegal leak.
The investigation is still ongoing. Libby, as you surely must know, was charged and convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to investigators - none of which, as crimes, require the lies to be about criminal activities.
And yes, Clinton **was** fined $90,000 for giving intentionally false testimony, which makes Scooter's current fine still excessive, and you people hypocrites.
I still don't understand the relevance of Clinton. Can you explain? I didn't support his actions then and I don't defend every single Clinton action, now.
I wonder if it's even possible for you to defend Bush without recourse to Clinton? There's really something sick about your obsession with someone who hasn't been president for nearly 7 years.
For my performance art piece this evening, a dramatic juxtaposition:
Jason H. Bowden: Clinton did it!
George W. Bush: We can do better in Washington D.C. We can have new leadership in Washington D.C., leadership that will lift this country's spirits and raise our sights. [. . . J]ust because the White House has let us down in the past, that doesn't mean it's going to happen in the future. [This is] a campaign that's going to restore honor and dignity to the White House.
--
Jason, I've said in comments to this very blog that the case against pardoning the FALN group was a persuasive one. I have not defended the pardon of Marc Rich. I have not defended any president's pardon or commutation of any sentence. And, rather than delve into whether Libby should have had his sentence commuted, I've tried instead to stick with whether Bush should have done the commuting outside of the bounds of the guidelines for doing so. My vote: No.
(And we can play tit-for-tat all day: I suppose there's no chance George H. W. Bush pardoned Orlando Bosch to appeal to the wacky rightist Cubans, eh? But such a game is stupid, and has nothing to do with the facts at hand.)
But mostly, I've been proving you wrong at every turn. You seem to know nothing but righty spin and lies when it comes to the Libby case and Joe Wilson, and when confronted with truth, you retreat again to Clenis-land and refuse to admit you bungled the facts. Even in your last post, you make simple errors of fact:
So we have here a non-illegal leak.
No, we have an illegal leak that no one has been charged with. Fitzgerald didn't think he could secure convictions, so he didn't indict, on the IIPA. That doesn't mean a crime didn't occur. (Extreme analogy: All those unsolved murder cases, are they "non-illegal homicides"?)
Libby's sentence was excessive
Libby's sentence was well within the Bush Administration's guidelines for sentencing! Period!
Clinton **was** fined $90,000 for giving intentionally false testimony, which makes Scooter's current fine still excessive, and you people hypocrites
Clinton was fined $90k for contempt of court, not perjury or obstruction of justice, as Libby was convicted of. Clinton accepted responsibility and did not appeal the verdict, unlike Libby. Clinton struck a plea deal in Arkansas to surrender his law license and pay another fine, unlike Libby who chose to go to court against case he couldn't win--as even current Bush consigliere Fred Fielding has admitted. (Similar can be said for Sandy Berger; he pleaded guilty rather than risk trial.) If Libby had pleaded two years ago, he might have gotten away with just a fine and probation regardless. So even though I do not--have not, will not--defended Clinton's misleading statements under oath, he "manned up" as they say these days and accepted his licks. Libby hasn't. Thus there is no parallel, and, therefore, no hypocrisy.
You (and Marshall and pcd) have, for the last week, lied with every stroke of the keyboard about Joe Wilson, about Valerie Plame, about Bill Clinton. It should not stand. Get off your fantasy right-wingy cloud and face facts.
OK boys. First of all, I don't turn tail and run. I'm not a Democrat. Secondly, I'm coming into this Libby debate late in the game. I haven't been following from day one, mainly because I took it as just another attempt by the sour-grapes left to discredit the admin. So enlighten me on this: was or was not Wilson's op-ed written with the purpose of discrediting Bush as far as any statments regarding Iraqi attempts to buy nuclear materials from African countries? As I recall, and forgive me not being as smart as you libs, Bush stated that according to a British report, Sadam was seeking such materials from African nations. How can he, by saying that such a purchase couldn't happen or didn't happen, prove it wasn't attempted, and as it doesn't, isn't he lying or putting for a distortion by saying a Niger failure accounts for all attempts at aquiring the stuff from "African nations"? Just respond to this whilst I continue my studies of the case.
Oh, BTW, Libby's sentence? Excessive.
Marshall, I'll take it slow:
Joe Wilson was an unnamed source (the anonymous "former ambassador") for both Pincus (early June, WaPo) and Kristoff (mid-May, NYT) in thier pieces questioning what the Bush administration knew about the 16 words and when they knew it. The Administration had been relying, in part, on reports from Niger when making their smoking gun=mushroom cloud claims. Those reports were based on forged docs and an interpretation pf Joe Wilson's report than Joe Wilson himself thought was stretching credibility.
After speculation about who the "former ambassador" was (indeed, the OVP gears were set in motion by the Kristoff piece, not Joe Wlison's op-ed), Wlison himself decided to go public.
When you read that original op-ed, Wilson doesn't say "Bush lied" or that Saddam had "never sought uranium from Africa" or "the Brits didn't say that" or any such thing. He says he investigated the allegations stemming from those forged documents. Here's his conslusion:
I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.
That's hardly the firebrand, errant missive many consservatives and Wilson-haters have built it up in their minds to be. You can imagine, after he'd filed a report saying there is no way Iraq could possibly get uranium from Niger, that he'd be upset that his findings were twisted and ignored. Hence the leaks to Kristoff and Pincus and, four years ago last week, his op-ed.
Nothing in Wilson's op-ed has been shown to be a lie. Nothing in Wilson's report to CIA has been shown to be a lie.
And yet the OVP and White House was ready to go with the oppo on Wilson, dispatching talking points and aides to smear Wilson, distort his words, and out his wife as a CIA agent. All over that from above, all over "his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them."
And that, Marshall, is how we got where we are. You and Jason and pcd have just plain been wrong about what Wilson actually said, and you've called him the liar. That's insanity. And it reflects badly on you.
Again, I find the fact the supporters of the Clintons are making a big deal about pardoning Scooter absolutely amazing. This is relevant because all of you will be supporting Hillary in 2008. Bush isn't on the ballot on 2008. Hillary will be.
Again, if you guys have no problem supporting people who pardoned people like Hugh Rodham's buddies and Marc Rich, then get off your high horse. At least in Scooter Libby's case, there was no underlying crime. If you're going to ask for charity for terrorists, then cut Scooter some slack. The guy should not have been in court in the first place.
My comment about Wilson also stands. Wilson is a liar. Arm
itage, who made the leak, hates the neocons as much as Colin Powell does. To speak as if the leak was some vendetta against Wilson is completely ridiculous. In addition, Wilson's comment in his op-ed
"Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."
is fallacious, at least when it comes to the 16 words. The 16 words were true. And don't forget about the 500 tons of yellowcake Saddam *did* have within Iraq that Wilson didn't mention. I'm talking about the 500 tons we found at Al—Tuwaitha when American tanks rolled into Baghdad. Saddam's Osirak facility had to be bombed by the Israelis in 1981, and to point out that this dude still wanted weapons was not immaterial to the case for war. Many Democrats -- Kerry, Edwards, Clinton et cetera made precisely this argument.
So why the hell do we want to send Scooter to jail? Because he thought he heard about Wilson in his conversation with Russert, when he heard about it elsewhere? You have got to be kidding me. Hillary in June 28th debate stated "Nonviolent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system."
Oh, but not if you are a Republican. You people are a joke.
So why the hell do we want to send Scooter to jail?
Because that was the sentence, following federal sentencing guidelines to the letter, for three felony convictions of obstructing justice, perjury, and making false statements to investigators.
Pretty simple, actually. The reason we want to send Libby to jail is because that's the appropriate punishment for his crimes, under the law.
At the very least, the threat of prison would be a useful tool to get Libby to testify about who he was protecting when he made those false statements.
Again, if you guys have no problem supporting people who pardoned people like Hugh Rodham's buddies and Marc Rich, then get off your high horse.
I think by now we've made it abundantly clear that Clinton abused his pardon authority in that case. And regardless, Bill Clinton will not be a candidate on the ballot in 2008, either, so again I question the relevance of his actions.
Wilson is a liar.
Funny, but you can't point to a single thing he lied about. Why is that?
And don't forget about the 500 tons of yellowcake Saddam *did* have within Iraq that Wilson didn't mention.
If Saddam had all that yellowcake, Jason, why was he looking for any in Niger? Your example proves Wilson correct.
Um, what Chet said, Jason.
There is nothing in these threads that you have said about Joe Wilson that can stand with any credibility. Nothing.
Jay,
What is your source for this version of events?
What "version of events?"
"I think by now we've made it abundantly clear that Clinton abused his pardon authority in that case. And regardless, Bill Clinton will not be a candidate on the ballot in 2008, either, so again I question the relevance of his actions."
Somehow I find it hard to believe you would've made that statement if Mz. Bill Clinton was still in office. Regardless, since Bush won't be running in 2008, you can "question the relevence of his actions" also.
Marshall, my "source" is the original docs: Some industrious googling on your own will turn up the original Pincus and Kristoff pieces (I am pretty sure I have linked to them in comment threads on this blog alrerady). This is the Senate Select Intelligence Committee report; look at conclusions 12-26. There are reproductions of the forged Niger memos all over the intertubes, too.
There are docs used as evidence in the Libby trial that show what the talking points were and when they were developed, including lies about Wilson like "he said Cheney sent him, but Cheney didn't know" and other whoppers. You should be able to google those up, as well.
What is the source for all of your claims that Wilson is a liar? It certainly isn't what Wilson actually wrote, as I've demonstrated here many times.
"Regardless, since Bush won't be running in 2008, you can "question the relevence of his actions" also."
Well, there's just the small fact that he currently occupies the White House....
And Bill Clinton was in office when he traded pardons for votes.
It's been highly amusing to watch the libs pretend outrage over Libby while simultaneously excusing Clinton.
See if you’re able to excuse Clinton’s pardon of Dr. Browder, a man convicted of defrauding the Federal Government for hundred’s of thousands of dollars by means of Medicaid and Medicare fraud.
You see, Dr. Browder had been a life long financial supporter of Democrats, and was well loved by Dems in high places.
Somehow I find it hard to believe you would've made that statement if Mz. Bill Clinton was still in office.
...wha? I don't understand what you're trying to say, here.
Not only did I criticize Bill Clinton for misusing his pardon authority then, when he did it; I criticized him for it last week and the week before. Hillary Clinton is still in office as a Senator of New York, so I'm not sure what you're on about.
If you're abundantly ignorant about the record, here, I suggest you stop making claims about it.
And Bill Clinton was in office when he traded pardons for votes.
And, yet, he's not in office now. Surely even a conservative knows that - though I wouldn't trust them to know much else, these days.
See if you’re able to excuse Clinton’s pardon of Dr. Browder, a man convicted of defrauding the Federal Government for hundred’s of thousands of dollars by means of Medicaid and Medicare fraud.
See if you can defend the election and re-election of Oklahoma senator Tom Coburn, who did exactly the same thing.
Post a Comment