It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ATS: Bush Ok'ed Plame leak according to Libby

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
"we attacked his moral charachter"

Where's your supposed moral indignation at the 34 bush scandals.

Not one has hit the floor of congress because the Republicans have no morals. Wait till the Democrats control congress( and they will). They will rip the criminal republicans apart with lawsuit after lawsuit, investigation after investigation.

34 Bush Scandals



[edit on 4/11/2006 by bodebliss]




posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
"we attacked his moral charachter"

Where's your supposed moral indignation at the 34 bush scandals.

Not one has hit the floor of congress because the Republicans have no morals. Wait till the Democrats control congress( and they will). They will rip the criminal republicans apart with lawsuit after lawsuit, investigation after investigation.

34 Bush Scandals


[edit on 4/11/2006 by bodebliss]


nice website, did you design it, kinda has the same ring as moveon.org no wonder no one has ever seen the site. I looked at it, no one is perfect, at least we got a President with Balls.

You should get some, it might help!

If you want to go through the list one by one we can if you want, I got the time.

Too bad the dems can't think of something on their own.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Ok, chill guys. If you want to play this partisan garbage take it to PTS.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

nice website, did you design it, kinda has the same ring as moveon.org no wonder no one has ever seen the site. I looked at it, no one is perfect, at least we got a President with Balls.

You should get some, it might help!

If you want to go through the list one by one we can if you want, I got the time.

Too bad the dems can't think of something on their own.


So you go from moral high-ground to just another thief wanna-be.

Typical



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss

nice website, did you design it, kinda has the same ring as moveon.org no wonder no one has ever seen the site. I looked at it, no one is perfect, at least we got a President with Balls.

You should get some, it might help!

If you want to go through the list one by one we can if you want, I got the time.

Too bad the dems can't think of something on their own.


So you go from moral high-ground to just another thief wanna-be.

Typical


did you expect me to address it point by point? yea I did kinda half ass it there, sorry guys.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Read is one thing, respond to nonsense is another and save your vile hate label projections for the mirror.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall...

Try it yourself (read), for the below mentions might save you from continuing in your hypocritical ways and illusioned responses.


A new court filing by CIA leak defendant Lewis Libby suggests that Libby has testified that Vice President Dick Cheney never told him to reveal the identity of CIA employee Valerie Wilson. The filing also suggests that Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, testified that neither President Bush nor anyone else told him to discuss Valerie Wilson, either.

The filing, released shortly before midnight Wednesday night, contains a footnote which says, "Consistent with his grand jury testimony, Mr. Libby does not contend that he was instructed to make any disclosures concerning Ms. Wilson by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or anyone else."

In his most recent court motion, CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wrote that "the President was unaware of the role that [Libby] had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson's CIA employment."
A new court filing lays out the defense.


Further "mirror-mirror" hypocrisy:


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An indicted former White House aide does not contend that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney ordered him to leak the name of a CIA officer whose husband criticized the administration's Iraq policies, the aide's lawyers said.
Libby won't argue Bush ordered leak of agent's name




In grand jury testimony two years ago, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby did not assert that President Bush or Vice President Cheney instructed him to disclose the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame to reporters as part of an effort to rebut criticism of the Iraq war, Libby's lawyers said in a court filing late yesterday.
Libby Wasn't Ordered to Leak Name, Papers Say


Please, when you get the time, please post up more of those anti-bush propaganda pictures and information on this applied case, Regenmacher. The truth here remains irrefutable, no matter the amount you do continue to post up and twist, and that is that Bush did not ok/authorize the Plame leak. As I have insisted from page one of this topic: read the Fitzgerald documents filed, which has been effectively provided in this topic.

All this has been nothing but a media and Regenmacher Bush-Cheney "Gotcha" Non-moment. Simply put: false headlines aimed at 1) increasing newspaper circulation, and 2) stirring up the continued media pot of anti-Bushism.






seekerof

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I will repeat myself...it is disingenious to claim that all they did was declassifiy some material and then gave it to the press. They knew damned good and well that Valerie Plames name would be released as well, they knew damed good and well that she was a covert operative (and that exposing a covert operative was against the law) and that it would destroy her career. How did they know this? They were gunning for her Husband Joe Wilson. They knew damned good and well what they were doing and it was using classified material to smear Joe Wilson, material that they themselves declassified just to do that with.

What part of this is criminal don't you understand?


PLEAE do some research; she was not covert, and had not been for almost 6 years, well beyond the time limits for outing a true covert agent. No-one here has mentioned the fact that what Wilson testified to pertaining to what he found about Saddam trying to buy (more) yelowcake from Africa, was exactly the opposite of what he told the NYT. THAT is the reason information was released to the media. I realise that facts don't matter to some, but come on........



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I will repeat myself...it is disingenious to claim that all they did was declassifiy some material and then gave it to the press. They knew damned good and well that Valerie Plames name would be released as well, they knew damed good and well that she was a covert operative (and that exposing a covert operative was against the law) and that it would destroy her career. How did they know this? They were gunning for her Husband Joe Wilson. They knew damned good and well what they were doing and it was using classified material to smear Joe Wilson, material that they themselves declassified just to do that with.

What part of this is criminal don't you understand?


... disingenuous it may be to you, but it is factual none the less. You haven't kept up with the news, obviously; 1- Plame was outed by Russia back in 1996, at which point she took a desk job and was no longer covert; 2- Her husband outed her many times at parties, introducing her as his "CIA wife." 3- She outed herself when she donated money to Algores campaign, while using the place she worked as her employer..... a CIA front company, to boot. 4- Wilson's story to the NYT was the opposite of what he told the CIA in their briefing, hence "the leak." Declassified information in no longer classified..... DUH. This sort of thing has been done going back to Roosevelt; get over it.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
By definition, the President cannot "leak" something that he has ok'ed, especially if he has gone through the process of having something classified declassified.


Amateur sophistry.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
"9/11 faded in the back ground when Iraq became the juiciest morsel."

I understand this. Bush's intent was to cause harm to Saddam and use the American people and our money in a Bush family fued.

That is criminal! Bush is a criminal.

He don't care about a war on terror. He's causing terror where there was none in Iraq. Bush is dumb, and those that follow his lead are dumber.


You really should do some research on Salmon Pak (terrorist training camp in Iraq); the "Mother of all connections" ( outlining the ties between Saddam and Al Queda) and a book by Saddams 2nd in command, a General, who told of multiple flights of stripped-out 747's carrying WMD's to Libya and Syria, and Saddams nuclear program. Geez.... I've known about it for well over a year now. Bush lied about nothing when it came to Saddam.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Marg, the only words you need are:

Liar- One who doesnt tell the truth: Mentiroso

Criminal- One who doesnt abide by the rules: Criminal



Your English is and has always been very good. Keep up the good work


dgtempe: Please read my posts, above.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
Bush is robbing us blind the only people who could hope to gain from his actions are those people who have a $100 million dollars or more and those people top his donor list.

Interesting , huh?


When was the last time a Dem said: "It's your money, and you should get to keep more of it"? Bush signs a law that gives working families the ability to keep more of their hard earned money, and it's only helping who? I've got news for you: the top 8% of earners pay over 82% of the taxes. The reductions in the tax rates (NOT "tax cuts") benefit everyone. Besides, anything that keeps more money in the peoples hands (no matter how much they make), and out of the hands of government, is a good thing.

By the way, I won't even try to present you with facts about how economics work, because you wouldn't believe it or, possibly, understand. You complain about "the rich", but when "the rich" build a house, who benefits? The carpenters, electricians, roofers, plumbers, bricklayers, and all of the employees at the companies who make those products. Ask THEM if they complain about "the rich." What about "the rich" buying a new Lexus? Asl those who build the car, make the parts, tires, etc, if THEY mind... those who use that earned money (and their lower taxes) to put food on their table, pay for their doctors and medication, or college for their child/children. Go ahead.... ASK them.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Regenmacher: On this forum, we are not allowed to "deny ignorance" to more than ten people; the "ignore" button doesn't work that way. 15 or 20 would be better, Admins.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by rizla

Originally posted by Seekerof
By definition, the President cannot "leak" something that he has ok'ed, especially if he has gone through the process of having something classified declassified.


Amateur sophistry.


No.... it factual, and the law, and it's been done since the Roosevelt era.

2nd lione added to keep with the rules.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   
".... Plunging the country into record debt...."

The Nat'l Debt is about 4% of GDP; quite manageable and affordable.
2nd line added for rule-keeping. Sorry.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Nothing will change the fact that all of President Bush's policies add up to Neoliberalism on an international scale to the detriment of your rights as a citizen of the US and the proliferation of rights to multinational corporations as "citizen extrordinare".

www.mexicosolidarity.org...

Your piddly little interests and cares mean nothing to Bush.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
"we attacked his moral charachter"

Where's your supposed moral indignation at the 34 bush scandals.

Not one has hit the floor of congress because the Republicans have no morals. Wait till the Democrats control congress( and they will). They will rip the criminal republicans apart with lawsuit after lawsuit, investigation after investigation.

34 Bush Scandals



[edit on 4/11/2006 by bodebliss]


Scandals are not an indication of or proof of any crime or corruption; they are merely alegations. The Dems were in charge for over 40 years, and the damage done was/is incredible. I don't recall Bush selling our entire patent database to the Communist Chinese, for campaign contributions, which included 40 years of nuclear technology and delivery systems. That was the previous admin.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I hear the intell leak caused the deaths of 100 intell agents who were experts at WMD analyses. But nobody is accusing Bush of murder ... ? I will rejoice to see him charged with Treason, Fraud and Malfeasance. He really ought to hang for these crimes. I'm sure, by now, Laura agrees.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
uhhh....False headline anyone?

Just to be more specific on the issue I have:


There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame’s CIA identity.


www.msnbc.msn.com...


Yes, very false, yet I have not seen the headline being changed. Shouldn't a staff member have changed the headline? The introduction line is also false. It's been already 6 days. ---i just noticed that this has been around for over two month now. (starting to wake up, had to work late last night)


[edit on 10-6-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
So, what Seekerof is saying is that it doesnt matter if we were deceived or not.
What really matters is the law and loopholes.




Decieved?... how exactly?.... What the article mentions was being declassified is information about Iraq.... Haven't you been one of the people asking for all evidence about the case for the war against Saddam's regime?

I don't know why grover would use this thread as "evidence" to claim that the identity of Valerie was authorized by the president. The article does not hint this at all.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join