Comments on: Indictments coming this week in Plamegate scandal?

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:47:04 +0000

Ok, so now you’re not only being deliberately obtuse, but you’re insulting the intelligence of everyone here. I think it’s time for you to take a break from this blog, shortz. People here who are interested in real discussion don’t have time for your nonsense. Dunno what’s going on, because you didn’t debate like this before. Hopefully the break will help.

By: shortz

shortz — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:38:56 +0000

“Oh really? Then who were you talking about below?:”

The people who leaked the information that endangered intelligence assets. I don’t know exactly who did it, but I know its people up there. Is there any doubt about that?

By: Pam

Pam — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:30:42 +0000

A Whisleblower? You mean like Linda Tripp? Wasn’t she smeared and financially ruined by the Clinton machine? Or would she not be considered a whistleblower?

By: PCD

PCD — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:14:11 +0000

edited — ST. Technically, you mentioned no one by name, but you referred to powerful people whom you inferred should get it solely because they were powerful and not Democrat union shills.

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:13:21 +0000

“I haven’t mentioned rove or libby.”

Oh really? Then who were you talking about below?:

“These guys are powerful individuals who endangered innocent and uninvolved intelligence professionals in their attempt to silence a whistleblower. Covering this up from the american people isn’t much better.”

By: shortz

shortz — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:03:02 +0000

“shortz, the problem we have with you is that you have Rove and Libby convicted of the leak without any evidence presented to this court of opinion.”

I haven’t mentioned rove or libby.

By: PCD

PCD — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:32:54 +0000

shortz, the problem we have with you is that you have Rove and Libby convicted of the leak without any evidence presented to this court of opinion. All we have is your bloviation.

My opinion is that Plame and Wilson “leaked” by their party behaviour and bragging about her job long before Wilson’s mouth began flapping to cover up his lies and lazyness.

By: shortz

shortz — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:31:12 +0000

“You have them lying under oath already.”

The endagerment is the leak. No one doubts that happened do they?

By: Baklava

Baklava — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:53:24 +0000

Again shortz, you wrote, ““These guys are powerful individuals who endangered innocent and uninvolved intelligence professionals in their attempt to silence a whistleblower. Covering this up from the american people isn’t much better.”

You have them convicted already. You have them lying under oath already. Seems you were a fly on the wall in the room? And if you were and came out and spoke you’d need to be indicted and convicted for breaking the law yourself shortz.

By: shortz

shortz — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:41:09 +0000

“Andâ€¦ you are acting like you KNOW that these guys were “covering this up from the american people”.”

Thats what they’d be accused of if they lied under oath.

“he is a partisan hack of the first magnitude.”

Who was appointed by Bush. Sr. But that guy had sense.

By: Severian

Severian — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:11:59 +0000

Calling Wilson a “whistleblower” with the positive indication of someone who nobly told the truth about something is like calling a violent serial rapist a “sex therapist.” Wilson lied about EVERYTHING, every statement he’s made has been a lie, promulgated to attempt to damage the Bush administration, he is a partisan hack of the first magnitude. The fact that the MSM continue to shuffle this under the table and refer to him as a “whistleblower” tells you volumes about the bias and lack of regard for the truth practiced by our so called professional journalists today.

By: Baklava

Baklava — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:58:32 +0000

shortz wrote, “These guys are powerful individuals who endangered innocent and uninvolved intelligence professionals in their attempt to silence a whistleblower. Covering this up from the american people isn’t much better.”

Who are “these guys”. You must be pretty knowledgable to know who “these guys” are. And… you are acting like you KNOW that these guys were “covering this up from the american people”.

Sounds like you have the case wrapped up! You should’ve been doing the investigation. You’d have people in jail whether they were guilty or not.

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:28:42 +0000

Oh ok – so you’re apparently ok with a President lying under oath getting off (no pun intended) rather easy as long as it was about sex and not something more serious.

I find that pretty telling – I’m in favor of a President not getting let off the hook easy no matter what lies he told on the stand. It goes without saying that lying under oath, especially when you are the President of the US, is a serious breach of trust. You, OTOH, (and many others who I believe share your viewpoint) don’t seem to share that same standard.

By: shortz

shortz — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:22:37 +0000

“What do you think should happen to those found guilty of perjury, shortz?”

Punishment. The severity depends on the evil they’re lying about. Blowjobs or national security or Lil’ Kim? I think we can agree on how to rank the severity of those, no?

“shortz, what do you think of Sandy Berger stealing documents by hiding them in his pants and then destroying them? ”

Bad guy. Should be punished.

By: PCD

PCD — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:01:25 +0000

shortz, what do you think of Sandy Berger stealing documents by hiding them in his pants and then destroying them? Remember, all he was doing was covering up for Clintionistas who enabled 9/11 to happen and then engaged in a coverup to protect the guilty.