He knows the truth is his alone
In all its cosmic glory shown
For lib’rals hold all truth that’s known
Of human knowledge all their own
He wakes with truth upon his mind
A gift from Delphi aptly primed
A gaseous form from earth refined
Breathed in with open heart and mind
Dare show this truth with logic fail
He’ll quickly gasp and start to rail
About sacrilege and his holy grail
Of how lib’ral truth will prevail
But lib’ral truth on this our earth
Stands for dumb and evokes our mirth
It’s anchored in a lack of worth
And drips with cosmic logic dearth
It roams the hills on Delphi gas
While smoking blades of funny grass
It burns the minds of the jackass
Who believes he is higher class
So let us write and tell a joke
About these fools we now invoke
They rant and rave just to provoke
But do not like the fun we poke
(My brother only gave me a C- on this one!)
to all the prepubescence liberalist pinko commie teenagers out….get a job and a life and stop trying to stir up the grown ups…or you are a 40 year old man in a wife beater who is so dilusional that he thinks he is 14 because thats all he sees in the mirror because he is still living in his moms basement and he feels justified cause he pays for the internet connection.
wow it says we rant and rave. HA. Talk a bout a rave.
And yes we have ravers there comidians. your ranters and and ravers are pill poping hypocrits like Oriely and Rush Limbo, god makes my neck tingle just thinking about it.
By the way im 14 and i know more the most child beating, red neck, hypocrite, Neo-Con Evengelicals do!
Sorry i just get a tad angry when i think about how some of you take Limbo’s word like you do with your b*** bible’s.
chinahill, i guess i should have mentioned libby’s name so as to not confuse you. libby lied, and was charged. as a result, fitzgerald couldn’t find out who leaked plame’s name. and i don’t ever think i mentioned bush being involved in the leak. you’re putting words into my mouth to show my “liberal hatred of bush”. stop trying to fit your stereotypes of liberals into every post i write, it knocks your credibilty down from its already low pedistal (your liberal bias makes skepticism needed while reading your posts).
chinahill, dan rather made a mistake and was held accountable, him not being on the air and all. fox news has a conservative bias which drives everything they put out. lies may have been too strong of a word, but misinformation and half-truths work. just look at who they have as hosts: bill o’reilly, sean hannity, brit humme. they have bill kristol as a contributer on fox sunday. these people all say reprehensible things and never get called out. its no wonder why foxnews viewers know less about iraq than those who watch the daily show, thinkprogress.org/2007/04/16/daily-show-fox-knowledge/.
maybe its my youth, but its hard to believe someone is so intrenched in their beliefs. but thats a difference between liberals and conservatives. liberals are more open to new things, thinkprogress.org/2007/11/13/entertainment-poll/. that may also be a difference between older people and the current generation. i may not have all of the answers, but at least i’m asking questions and am skeptical. many things are wrong with american culture and politics today and i want to know why.
liberals say many things on this site, but chinahill choses to discuss only some of what is said. if he believes only facts and evidence, i wonder how chinahill believes about other issues: gay marriage, sex-education, global warming, etc.
The Other Side,
Fitzgerald had interviewed Armitage and everyone else involved in the leak to include Novak. He knew that Armitage leaked on his own accord because Armitage told him so under oath. What? You now think that Armitage lied and was lying to protect Cheney who is not even in his chain of command? You need to get away from your hatred of Bush and Cheney and think reasonably. Richard Armitage has been around the government for decades. He is no Bush supporter and never has been. Why do you think that Fitzgerald would not believe a man like that who told him what happened under oath. You certainly have the right to believe whatever you want but – this is illogical and it is the reason I and many of my fellow conservatives believe that Fitzgerald had an agenda. He already had the answer to the reason for the special prosecutor which was set up by Bush. Bush stated openly that he wanted to know the identity of the leaker. If Bush ordered the leak or if Cheney ordered the leak, is it logical for Bush to call for the special prosecutor. You see why I believe liberalism is a philosophy of the absurd. Like most federal prosecutors I have known, Fitzgerald has a huge ego. He either has an agenda or he felt that he MUST prosecute someone – anyone no matter how ridiculous. He had the leaker. The leaker told him the circumstances of the leak. The special prosecutor continued with what turned out to be a sham – prosecuting someone who mispoke under oath. Remember Clinton did the same thing and only lost his license to practice law in Arkansas for a year. Maybe you thought it was ok to lie about sex under oath as one of my former federal prosecutor friends tried to say. Lying about anything under oath is illegal.
Am I going to convince you, a liberal, concerning the possible agenda of Fitzgerald? No way. The object of this whole discussion is to show you that we conservatives have just as much reason to believe what we believe as you have what you believe. Yours is one of emotion as you readily admit with your constant references to circumstancial and smoke over the White House.
You know in your heart that Bush in corrupt. Why? I think it has something to do with liberals knowing that their elected officials are capable of corruption and thus they think that our representatives are the same way. Differences in expectations maybe.
If you will notice, I am responding to what liberals are saying here and not the other way around. You state that I “call out” liberals for not addressing issues as if you are not calling me “out” on your issues. I respond to what you liberals are writing. You liberals are driving my responses and not the other way around. So the reality is that YOU chose whatever you wanted to talk about and all I did was respond to the lies that you put forth, trying to show you that you just might be a tad bit biased.
“i’ve always known your ego to be large, but this megalomania is making this debate pathetic”
Isn’t it amazing how you liberals love to attack people you do not even know just because they dare “call you out” for your written statements. I especially loved the use of the word “megalomania.” Seems to me I have couched everything I have written with the concept (foreign to all the liberals I have come to know and laugh at) that I could be wrong. All you got to do is come up with the proof/evidence and I will change my mind. Rumors, smoke, feelings of hate, and such do not qualify as proof but when used as proof makes me laugh.
“you keep finding examples of “liberal lies”, “however small”, and using them to bad mouth liberals;”
Is this an admission that you think that it is ok to tell small lies but not big lies? What do you define as small and what do you define as big? Is it ok to lie about sex under oath if you are the president who is the chief prosecutor of the nation? What can he lie about and what can he not lie about under oath? A lot of questions come up when you make the statement like you did above. Liberals tend to think it is ok for them to lie but no one else. You know the “I did not have sex” thing of Clinton and all. There are many websites that specialize in the Clinton Legacy of lies. So many lies one has to keep a score card just to keep them straight. Bet you think the same thing of Bush, right? Please send me the score card (best not ask me for Clintons as it is readily available).
Also please do not make allegations about anything or anyone without the accompanying evidence. It is very tiresome to try to get such evidence from liberals, especially when it seems never to exist.
Fox lies? Ok, send proof. You want proof of the lies of CNN and others? Go first and explain the phony Dan Rather documents that CBS aired before you do anything else. The proof will follow if you can handle of megabytes.
Once more, read my comments closely. I am an old retired person who has been all over the world several times, seen things you simply have not, done things only a handful of people have done and have more academic education than most. If I do not see hard evidence, I simply do not buy into anything. That is the nature of experience in matters of reason and intellect.
If you wanted to see racism in America, you will see it. That does not necessarily mean that what you saw is really racism. You want to see a corrupt Bush, you can explain your believe to yourself by what you see or think you see. Your question is irrelevant to the reality of the situation of corruption. He is either corrupt or he is not corrupt. A little corruption means he is corrupt. It is a black and white world that we deal in when we deal in politics.
As those who believe in the visibility of ghosts can easily see them, so it is always easy to see repulsive qualities in those we despise and hate. (Frederick Douglass)
As to the email situation, this is what I call “fishing in empty ponds.” For sure all the evil and corruption will be proven with the retrieval of the emails. Yeh right. Kind of what happened with the Al Gore emails right.
Welcome to the real world of computers. I simply will not get excited over such nonsense. If the emails are your last hope of proving something, you have already lost. And so it continues. Remember these:
April 5, 2000 ‘The fix is in’ on e-mail fix? Contractor hired to ‘restore’ records employs 2 senior Clinton officials
June 6, 2000 The White House e-mail audit report:A look at the 500 accounts hit by ‘server glitch’
June 9, 2000 Another tech ‘error’ scrubs Gore e-mail: Congress may subpoena White House aide’s hard-drive cartridge
October 5, 2000 Gore e-mail guru ran afoul of law: Aide who lost records had run-ins with computer staff, Secret Service
Ho-hum. Dealing with liberals never changes. Gotta run. Hang in there with some more of your fun stuff. This egomaniac must go to Leshan Provincial Capital on business. Look it up on google. It is where the world’s largest buddha lives.
chinahill, fitzgerald was trying to figure out how far up the chain of command the leak came from; for instance, seeing if cheney ordered the leak. it would be important if, in fact, cheney had ordered the leak, because there would be ethical questions. also, more to add to the impeachment proceedings. we still don’t know the full details of the leak, but the case is still open.
and the emails are important. the administration broke the law, presidential records act of 1978. the white house was subpeonaed to release the information from the emails. can you brush that off as a liberal lie? the time period of the emails is also important. it includes the run-up to iraq and katrina. both situations were handled incompitently and it is important to see conversations within the white house and the resulting decisions. and again, they broke the law. is breaking the law not important to chinahill?
you keep finding examples of “liberal lies”, “however small”, and using them to bad mouth liberals; who cares about a turkey. thats a self-fulfilling prophecy. just look at what fox news does and tell me they don’t also lie, and thats not defending the msm. the media seems to care more about clinton’s tips and cackle, edwards’ haircut and obama’s middle name than the issues.
chinahill, i find it also interesting that you call out liberals for not addressing issues that you chose, but only respond to issues that you chose, e.g. the ones you laugh at. so, if i can get this straight, you can chose whatever you want to talk about and i need answer every question you want. i’ve always known your ego to be large, but this megalomania is making this debate pathetic.
you still haven’t addressed why, with all of the circumstantional scandals, bush isn’t corrupt? or even if you think he is corrupt or not? you always defend him, do you think he’s a good president? if anyone else, *cough*liberal*cough*, had these many clouds overhead, conservatives would be outraged. oh wait, they impeached clinton for lying about a sex scandal
The Other Side,
Well, at least you have honestly come to the conclusion that there simply is no evidence to prove that Bush is corrupt. A step in the right direction. We both agree on that point.
The concept is “innocent until proven guilty” and does not have the conjunction “but” following it. Either you buy into this concept or you do not. There is no half way positions one can take on this concept. If there is, please correct me.
If I wrote the local newspapers and called you a pedophile (I am not calling you one nor do I even think you are one) without providing any proof, would you be required to prove the negative? If I told everyone that you were a Martian, would you have to prove the negative? The concept of proving the negative is a liberal ploy so they do not have to provide evidence and proof for their allegations. I see it happening all the time. You make the accusations, you are required to provide the proof. There simply is no exceptions, smoke, fog or anything else.
You have the right to believe that Bush is corrupt. I never said you did not have the right. What I am saying and have said from day one on this website is that you do not have any proof of that corruption. The proof simply does not exist, has never been covered up and will never exist because the man is not corrupt. You believe he is because “in your heart you know he is.” You need no proof, you just KNOW he is corrupt. This is why I detest the liberal philosophy so much – emotion over logic.
I have been called a moron by liberals on this site. I have been called insane. I have been called a dufus. Liberals have insulted my wife. I have been called unintelligent. My opinions have been called ignorant rants. I have been called “full of sh*t and a dingbat. I simply repeated the insults that I have acquired in the a short time I have come here. I wanted to emphasize the point that you liberals are not tolerant of others’ beliefs and never have been. This paragraph could be construed as rambling, the following sentence made up of 18 words can in no way be called rambling: “But then again, I could be wrong, being an insane, moronic, full of sh*t, theory-generating, dingbat dufus.”
What has caused this verbal abuse from the “oh, so tolerant liberals?” I dared question their comments and statements of fact. I dared provide evidence for why I believe as I do and always with the caveat that I could be wrong. I dared request evidence for why these same liberals write the things they write. I dared make fun through sarcasm and jokes about their “ignorant rants” and personal insults. I dared set up a “liberal modus operandi” predicting how these liberals will respond to what I see as the truth. I have never used impolite language, never called anyone a dufus, moron, dingbat, full of sh*t or any other name except maybe implying strongly that as a libeal you were fudging the information (a liar).
Dr. Nutslikebush has already gone “stone cold silent” on all my requests for evidence with personal insults and an obvious hate-filled comment. It is not what I believe that he hates, it is me personally! Liberalism at its disgusting core!
You guys don’t just hate the conservative philosophy you hate and despise the conservative. This is not about Bush’s conservative philosophy, it is about Bush personally. Dr. Nutlikebush simply can not define my conservativism and never will so he hates me personally. I am a conservative, with or without his approval or his definition.
I addressed your allegations of the emails missing from the White House. I do not know nor do I care if they are missing or not. I have lost too much stuff on a computer over the course of several decades to try to make something of such a thing. The point I was making was that the CREW did not provide evidence for the allegations. Undisclosed confidential sources are not evidence. Anyone can make a statement and then try to hide behind such undisclosed confidential sources. Politicians do it all the time. I will never buy such nonsense from anyone, conservative or liberal.
I also made the point that if the emails were missing, how did these undisclosed confidential sources know how many were missing? A simple and logical question that begs to be asked? Why not explain to me how they know the number if the emails are missing? This is a very straight up question that deserves a straight up answer.
In fact, I have asked some pretty straight forward questions which you have failed to answer. For example, you stated that Fitzgerald got sidetracked from his investigation as to who leaked the Plame’s name. I asked how this could be since he already knew from day one who leaked the name? Simple question but I got no reply or even a comment.
You state Bush has had such a terrible track record. What track record are we talking about here? He liberated 50 million people from tyrants and murderers. We are now in the 52nd straight month of economic growth and increases in employment. He gave us all (not just the rich) a tax cut that has generated economic growth. Immigration seems to be on the front burner where it belongs. He has brought forward reforming the Social Security System as a topic of discussion. He has signed the education reform bill. He has done many things, some good some bad. Look at the positives and then look at the negatives (discarding our difference of opinion of the Iraq war). I do not see such a terrible track record except as it is made up by the liberals and the liberal press. It is my opinion that the smoke you think you see is from the liberals trying to generate scandals that do not exist simply for political gain. You say it comes from Bush and his corrupt practices and then you admit you have no evidence for thinking that. I, on the contrary, have a lot of evidence for believing the smoke is from liberal lies. I do not need to list these lies as they are readily available on the internet.
One particular lie, however small, is what I think is the classic example of the liberal lie. Remember the photo op the President did in Iraq during his Thanksgiving trip with him holding a turkey for the troops. The liberal MSM claimed the turkey was phoney, a prop, made of plastic. Go back and look what you liberals wrote about it. Such things as the plastic presidency, the phoney presidency and so on. Well, the turkey was indeed real and the liberals made the whole thing up. Small point but it does add to the smoke. BTW, no liberal who bad-mouthed the president over this lie ever admitted it was a lie nor did they apologize to anyone for their blatant lies. The smoke is generated by the liberals IMHO. And as usual, I may be wrong and will admit my mistake with enough evidence.
Now you can go ahead and get into your liberal mode and insult my wife, my mother and father and go stone cold silent to my honest requests for proof of why you believe the way you do. It is not your fault, it is the liberal philosophy you have bought into.
chinahill, you give me grief because i cannot conclusively prove that bush is corrupt. but with all of the storm clouds brewing above the white house, how can you prove that he isn’t? i know in america its innocent until proven guilty. but with all of the skepticism behind bush and his practices, questions need to be asked. except bush seems to have issuses with saying anything. even now he’s trying hard to suppress the white house sign in book. what…is…he…hiding? you don’t trust anything that a liberal says, with the “lies” and all, but you seem to believe everything bush says. its not me attacking a president of the opposite party, its me wondering what the heck he’s doing because he’s had a pretty terrible track record. not everything can be placed behind executive privelege.
chinahill, you again trivialize a point i make with hyperbole. its between 5 million and 10 million emails, not 200 billion. then you criticize my source. do you actually not believe that there are missing white house emails? or do you just like to attack a liberal so much, that you don’t care about facts? oh, and then you sarcastically ramble on about being an insane, moronic… from reading your posts, i would have say that you would rather attack a liberal than writing something meaningful.
chinahill, just like how you repeat the “liberal motus apperendi”, i’m going to repeat that just because you say its a lie, doesn’t make it a lie. just because you don’t believe something, doesn’t mean its not true. and just because you say it, doesn’t make it the truth.
Ok Nutlikebush, have at it. But you obviously have forgotten what website you are making your comments on. If liberals did not make stupid comments and/or lie to gain benefits and power, there would be no such website as this. Any comment I have made is in direct response to a “gut-busting experience” I had on this site. This is a “response” website, addressing the lies and ridiculous comments our liberal brethren make. To bring Abramoff into the equation is great but is, indeed, one of the famous non sequiturs you liberals are so good at when faced with the truth.
Does the words “stone cold silence” ring a bell? Do believe I listed it as a typical liberals response to truth piled on their heads. Where are your responses to my queries for the evidence that you use to make allegations against the evil Republicans? I did not defend Abramoff nor did I even bring up Cunningham.
Let me guess on Abramoff. You probably believe with all your heart and all your soul that the Abramoff Corruption Scandal was a Republican scandal only, touching only Republican people in and out of Congress, right? Be careful with your answer because I have already accumulated the “proof of compliance” among several of your, what did you call it “pure as the driven snow” liberals.
Let me make a statement here that I know is absolutely true: Norman Hsu gave only to Democratic candidates while Abramoff was an equal opportunity corruption monger. Care to dispute this statement? Now what was it you were going to say about Jack Abramoff and the concept of “pure as the driven snow.” Oh, BTW, the Hsu deal is several times bigger than the Abramoff scandal or didn’t you know that/
One time my brother made the statement that for every liberal Democrat in Congress I could name with proven ethical problems, he would send me five conservative Republicans with problems. Believed it with all his liberal heart and soul (bless his podunker head). I immediately sent him 50 names of liberal Democrats who had come under investigation or were involved in ethical activities plus listed each of the problems they had gotten involved with in great detail. I also had another 50 names waiting for when he sent me the 250 names of conservatives who had ethical problems. He went “stone cold silent” on the entire issues. Never saw a single conservative name and he refuses to even admit he made the challenge.
Republicans simply do not put up with our representatives doing that kind of stuff. Why else do you see Republicans resigning when busted for ethical problems instead of lying, tap dancing, discounting or rationalizing. Craig, of course, is an exception but his political life is over as the Republicans in his state will kick him out on the next ballot. Integrity is simply not very high on the liberals list of things they expect from their elected representatives. First and foremost is always to gain power and influence. Nothing else matters. “Pure as the driven snow” you say? Compared to liberals, they most definitely are (even though we both know they are not and never will be).
I have very little respect for any politician. You have never read in this website or anywhere else that I think Republicans in Congress or any other political office are as “pure as the driven snow.” I do not now nor have I ever agreed with everything that is going on inside or outside the Republican party and its agenda. If you and your liberal smear mongers would cease the nonsense you put out to discredit, smear and otherwise slander men and women with whom you disagree, we would probably find that we have much in common as Americans. As long as you hold to the lie that Bush is more corrupt than any other politician current or past, I will respond with the truth that he is no different than all the other presidents. Being president is the most difficult job in the world. I did not agree at all with Clinton and still firmly believe that he is the reason we live in the world we now live in. The liberal agenda sucks and causes death and destruction where ever it is applied.
I never called Clinton a hitler as way more than 1% of you liberals do. I did not make up crap just to discredit him. He got into trouble because he was the most immoral and personally corrupt human ever to be the president. He is not stupid and when he moved to the center after his first four disastrous years in office, he was able to get some things done. That is the only thing that saved him from being the worst and most incompetent as Carter is regarded by even liberal historians. The legacies are complete. History has not spoken kindly of Carter and I believe it will not treat Clinton much better. No one knows the legacy of GWB. It is still being written. Anyone who says otherwise is just another liberal fool.
Now what was it you were going to tell me about Jack Abramoff and why have you turned silent on the other issues?
Truth has a way of forcing peopl
ChinaHill,
I have been forced to conclude that you are incapable of intelligent discussion. No further responses to your stupidity will come from me. I have been guilty of enabling your ignorant rants for too long already.
ChinaHill,
I didn’t say conservatives are full of sh*t. I said you were. I don’t equate you with conservatives. I like and respect many conservatives. Many of my best friends are very conservative. So it is not conservatism that I detest in you, it is your personality. It sucks!
The Other (Terrorist) Side,
Loved your comment about being “taken aback.” Most liberals are, indeed, “taken aback” by the truth. Now to do something more than being “taken aback” by it, there’s the real trick. But then again, I could be wrong, being an insane, moronic, full of sh*t, theory-generating, dingbat dufus.
ChinaHill, I know that you think that your favorite team is as pure as the driven snow. Remind me to tell you a story about a fellow named Jack Abramoff sometime when you have a few spare weeks to listen to a brief rundown of how he worked with some of the fellows you love.
Dearest Dr. Nutslikebush,
Language has only one purpose – to communicate information from one person to another person. Are you trying to tell me that you had no idea who I was talking about when I wrote Fitzpatrick instead of Fitzgerald?
Duhhhh, I bet you saved everyone who reads these comments a lot of hair pulling and head scratching because I was unable to communicate the concept of the special prosecutor in the Plame Game Case when I mistyped his name. I am sure thousands upon thousands of these poor souls will be commenting and praising you for correcting this huge communications mistake. Who was it again, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, right? Gee I bet no one knew who I was writing about when I typed Fitzpatrick instead of Fitzgerald in the context of the special prosecutor for the Plame Game. Yep, you done really good – NOT.
When a liberal has not comeback for the truth, if they haven’t tire themselves out tap dancing, twisted their brains via the rationalizing activity or go broke on discounts, will go after grammatical and typing errors, pointing these items out as evidence that us conservatives must be full of sh*t. Or, what was it you called me? A dingbat, right?
I am sure you had no idea who I was writing about, right? But wait, if you did not know who I was writing about how did you figure out the real name of Fitzgerald? Did you have to read my mind or maybe you used your magic mirror to look into who I was meaning. You truly are an amazing human being, existing obviously at a much higher plain that this insane moronic, dingbat, full of sh*t dufus.
BTW, good Dr. Nutslikebush, do you use these not-so-polite terms often or just when the magic fairy dust gets in your eyes.
As to Fitzpatrick/Fitzgerald/Fitzmas being appointed by a conservative or a liberal, doesn’t really matter. How does that old Biblical saying go – “by their fruits, ye shall know them.”
Fitzy knew who leaked the information and knew from the very beginning. In my opinion, if a liberal gets the White House, the AG will have the same name as the Special Prosecutor for the Plame Game. Opinions, BTW, can never be construed as lies when shown to not be true. Maybe you liberals should start sticking “in my opinion” on your comments whether than to be so rigid in your concepts of who is corrupt and who is not.
Laughing hard as usual.
To The Other (Terrorist) Side,
Two confidential (undisclosed) sources stated to this CREW that 200 billion emails had gone missing. Yeh, right! And all the evidence which you did not put in your response to my requests for evidence went away with all those emails, right?
Still tap dancing I see concerning evidence for Bush corruption and the cover-ups. But wait, he covered them up so you were not able to get the evidence for the corruption. Erased all those emails they did, those evil Bush corrupt conservative Republicans. Amazing how many of those undisclosed and confidential sources you liberals can come up with on a moments notice. Real Americans do not go undisclosed. I bet they went in and counted each and every missing email, those undisclosed and confidential sources. Talented, aren’t they?
Now as to the Libby, Fitzgerald/Fitzpatrick/Fitzmas, Armitage triangle. You state that Fitzgerald was thrown off track by Libby’s perjury, right? He had to pursue the leak so justice would prevail, right? Still had no idea who leaked the Plame information when he interviewed Libby and thus was really burned by the Libby thing and really thrown off track, right?
Would you change your mind if you knew that Fitzy baby knew from day one where Novak got the information about Plame? If this is true, then you are just another liberal liar spreading your lies on this website. Duhhhhh, but Libby just really threw the Fitzy off course and made him waste soooo much time looking in the wrong places.
I have never convinced a liberal in my life of their lies. Not one. I have never had a liberal admit to lying even when show the evidence in black and white. But I have made them call me “full of sh*t often. Guess these liberals have never been told they are the tolerant ones in America. You know, the golden elite of American intellectual society and the best educated in America. I mean after all, I am an insane moronic dufus and now full of sh*t. Oh, yes, as forThe Other (Terrorist) Side, I am indeed laughing at both of the liberals who are cracking “jokes” on this site. Laughing bigtime!
Oh BTW, here are some small slam dunks following that you will probably get “rope burns” from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/09/dangerous_liaisons_wilson_armi.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 — An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15489180/
updated 7:47 p.m. ET Oct. 30, 2006
WASHINGTON – Without ever mentioning him by name, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, in a court filing Monday, argues that a jury in the CIA/Leak trial should not consider evidence concerning why he did not charge former State Department official Richard Armitage with leaking Valerie Plame’s name to reporters. It is a crime to intentionally disclose the name of a classified CIA operative.
http://decision08.net/2006/09/09/the-plamegate-blame-game-its-an-armitage-fitzgerald-duet/
Who is to blame for all this? Well, a lot of fingers in Washington are now pointing at Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. He knew very early on that Armitage was Novak’s primary source, but ordered Armitage, Novak and Secretary of State Colin Powell — in whom Armitage had confided — not to talk about the case.
…..
Of course, the President had, from the day a leak was claimed, asked everyone in his Administration to tell him if they had leaked. He certainly would not have agreed to an investigation nor demanded his people cooperate with it, even signing waivers of press confidentiality, had he known who the leaker was. He would have just fired him or kept him on with the explanation —— which no one much questions —— that it was inadvertent, regretful and had not in any way harmed national security.
Guess this qualifies you for a liar’s trophy, huh, Mr. The Other (Terrorist) Side. Bet you try your best to tap dance, discount or rationalize out of this just like all that evidence you sent to prove that Bush is corrupt. BTW, if there really was evidence, your boys and girls in Congress would have jumped on it long ago instead of feeding their BS rhetoric to Americans intellectual elites, the liberal minions who buy into all the liberal crap that floats in the sewer system of the American political system.
Enjoy your newly won trophy – you deserve it. Great fun, huh?
Patrick Fitzgerald is a Bush appointed US attorney and was nominated by a republican congressman from Illinois. I guess that makes him a partisan democrat, right?
ChinaHill, you are so full of sh*t it is phenomenal.
ChinaHill,
The prosecutor’s name is not Fitzpatrick, you dingbat, it’s Patrick Fitzgerald. Speaking of laughing. You don’t even know who the players are. So now that I have given you the actual name of the prosecutor, do you about any of the other convictions he won in the past few years?
He served on a team of prosecutors investigating Osama bin Laden. He also served as chief counsel in prosecutions related to the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. On July 18, 2005, Fitzgerald’s office indicted a number of top aides to Democrat Richard M. Daley, the mayor of Chicago, on charges of mail fraud, alleging numerous instances of corruption in hiring practices at City Hall. Fitzgerald is also investigating the administration of current Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. An investigation announced on December 30, 2005 will review contracts between the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority and vendors who signed leases to occupy the recently remodeled Illinois Tollway oases. Fitzgerald’s office is investigating possible conflicts of interest between these vendors and one of Blagojevich’s top fundraisers, Antoin Rezko.
Still think he is a partisan? Think he doesn’t prosecute democrats with the same vigor he showed in the CIA covert agent leak case?
oh…my…gosh. how does chinahill make the time to write all of those posts. just because you write a lengthy post doesn’t mean that it’s all evidence. you say in one post, “Joe Wilson is a known and proven liar.” and then, in the same post, say “Why would (wilson) say such a thing unless it is true.” (about her being a clandestine agent). did the main stream media lie about plame’s employment record? or do you need to dig so deep to find information that fits your preconceived bias? maybe the simplest explaination is the truth.
crew (citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington) said, according to two confidential sources, that the executive office of the president lost approximately 5 million, later increased to 10 million, emails from between march 2003 and october 2005, citizensforethics.org/node/27607. thats during the run-up to the iraq war until katrina. chinahill, do you not believe me on that point?
libby lied about his role in the leak, and was charged for it. the prosecution was trying to figure out who leaked plame’s name to novak when libby lied. as a result, the investigation was throw off course. when the identity of the true leakers, armitage and rove, was revealed, the prosecution had a duty to continue the libby trial, he still lied. armitage didn’t “willfully disclose” plame’s identity, which makes what he did not a crime. he said her name fleetingly at the end of a conversation. thats why they’re not charging armitage. what he did was wrong, but apparently not against the law. but to say that because, in hindsight, there was no crime to investigate means that libby shouldn’t be prosecuted is ludicrus. i’ll repeat, he lied to investigators and thats a crime. fitzgerald didn’t know anything about the leak, thats why he investigated. it wasn’t a liberal game, it was an individual in the administration misleading an investigation. why shouldn’t libby be punished?
chinahill, you throw out so many theories, all against liberals, yet don’t provide any evidence. fitzgerald didn’t release information because he wanted to suck up for a potential future job? how can anyone prove that? did you think that because this administration has politicized so many parts of the government that maybe they politicized the cia? they were/are torturing people. just look at what happened to the justice department under gonzales.
i’m still taken aback by your comment about all of the bush scandals being liberal lies. but i guess if you cannot see all of the coverups, then how could you see the underlying scandals. does chinahill actually believe this bush and his cronies are boy scouts?
The Lies of Dr. Nutslikbush
“Guess this can be added to the growing list of lies that have come from the pen of the good doctor since I arrived on the scene.”
Lies coming from one’s pen surely implies that that person is a liar. Well, since Dr. Nutslikbush referred to my wife as an inflatable Asian, guess I did break down and refer to him (almost directly) as a liar. But then, I kinda live with the truth that he is a liar concerning my wife and have lived with this truth for over 30 years. He obviously has no concept what it means to be married to a living, breathing, product of more than 5000 years of cultural development. Inflatable she is not.
I stand corrected. Dr. Nutslikebush, like all liberals I have come to know and laugh at, is, indeed, a liar. But then what do I know as an insane, moronic dufus!
And to all the liberals who have trouble with the English language
My beliefs concerning the Plame Game (as I call it) do not revolve around the concept that she was or she was not a “real” covert agent. The issue is whether or not a crime was committed when her name was leaked. I do not believe she was a “real agent” at the time of her “outing” but who am I to even say. Of course, I may be wrong as I readily admit.
Logic tells me that if a crime was committed, the one who perpetrated the crime should be punished. Richard Armitage leaked the information as we all now know. If there was a crime, we have our man. If there was no crime, he would not be charged. Was he charged?
Logically then, there was no crime and this whole thing was a game by the liberal left-wing who care nothing about the truth and only about their road back to power. I challenge anyone to explain to me how it was a crime and the known perpetrator of the crime is not charged.
Boy, do I love this site!
The Other (Terrorist) Side,
Loved all your evidence for the corruption that Bush has been involved with – NOT.
Why not just provide the evidence for his corruption and get it over with? Or is it part of the alleged 10 million emails that are missing. BTW, how did you know it was 10 million missing if they are missing? Why not say 2 billion or 200 trillion. Your prattle is meaningless without evidence. You got no evidence so you set up your straw men to explain why you have no evidence.
Libby was convicted of perjury and this had nothing to do with the leak. Fitzmas refused to provide the evidence for the reason he was a special prosecutor – the illegal leak itself. Since you have no evidence of wrong doing by the White House, you state, like all liberals – the evidence must be in the 10 million or 2 billion or 200 trillion emails gone missing. Welcome to “fishing in empty ponds.”
I asked you before and I ask you again, provide evidence for your statements, especially about Bush corruption and cover-ups. Missing emails is not evidence.
I continually bring up the liberal modus operandi because you continually use it when you cannot come forth with any evidence. Bring on the evidence and once-and-for-all prove I am really an insane moronic dufus.
Why are you so upset with me? Could it be that you are unable to meet the basic rules of interactive human communication? Could it be that you are getting a glimpse that what I and many of my fellow conservatives believe could be reasonable? Could it be that your liberal lies are proving to be just that – lies?
I await your solid evidence for Bush corruption. No more tap dancing around it. No more discounting why there is none. No more rationalizing why you believe Bush is so corrupt. State your evidence or admit you could be wrong.
Wanna bet you tap dance some more?
See why it is so much fun to laugh at you liberals? Entertaining just does not describe the sport well enough.
And to Dr. Nutslikebush and English lesson of sorts
“A paragraph is an organisational feature of written English, and many other languages as well. It is a group of sentences, or possibly a single sentence, separated from the rest of the text by a space above and below it or by indenting the first line (leaving a space between the margin and the first word). A paragraph usually contains sentences that deal with one topic, and a new paragraph signals a change of topic.” (http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/paragraph.html)
You wrote your paragraph about Bush signing an unconstitutional agreement. That was the point of this paragraph. Nowhere do you imply that the unconstitutional part was referring to the constitution of Iraq. You talk about Maliki’s part in the second paragraph.
Sorry, liberal, but there simply is no other way to interpret your paragraph but that Bush was conducting unconstitutional activity, the US Constitution. If you had meant to say Iraqi constitution then you would have written that and that would have made your whole sentence nonsense. Who, in their right mind (as opposed to their left mind) would possibly care about the Iraqi constitution since Bush comes under the US Constitution only in this agreement signing.
You are tap dancing and we both know it. You misspoke and we both know it. Why else would you be showing so much anger at this insane moronic dufus (who BTW has a Masters in English from Oklahoma State University).
Liberals are liberals where ever you find them. When caught in a blatant lie, they simply try to tap dance their way out of it. Best not take a poll at this site to see what others thought you meant.
I am laughing at liberals and believe me, I enjoy it immensely. No hate coming from me. Way too much fun to laugh!
To The Obvious Self-Absorbed Dr. NutslikeBush
Read the following paragraph very carefully. Note it is a separate, stand alone paragraph.
“But I know that we are never leaving Iraq. I am just dreaming. In fact, last week Bush signed an agreement (an unconstitutional one) with Maliki promising to keep American troops in Iraq on permanent American owned and operated bases essentially forever. Remind me what we could ever hope to get from being there? There is nothing whatsoever in the middle east that we are interested in except ….. (you fill in the blank). It certainly only jeopardizes our security and damages our military to be there.”
You state clearly “Bush signed an agreement (an unconstitutional one) . . .”. There can be no other way to understand what you meant except that Bush was involved in unconstitutional activity with this signing. This is not inferred by you but directly stated. You say nothing about an Iraqi constitution (and who would really care at this site about such a thing) in this paragraph (a separate and stand alone part of English composition). You are referring to the US Constitution. To say anything other than this is what liberals do best when caught in a lie: tap dance.
If you really expect me and the other conservatives to believe that you really meant that Bush signed an agreement and it was unconstitutional based on the Iraqi constitution, well, as I stated earlier:
It (liberal truth) roams the hills on Delphi gas
While smoking blades of funny grass
You are simply trying to tap dance your way out of your lie. No amount of this tap dancing will change the fact (which we all have in black and white) that you stated Bush was in an unconstitutional activity with this agreement.
Welcome to the world of the liberal debate show: discount, tap dance and rationalize. Umpteen times means a lot of tap dancing. Wouldn’t it have been much easier to state that you misspoke when you made the statement about the unconstitutionality of the agreement Bush signed? Nope, you must always protect that liberal philosophical quilt for fear it will fall apart. Bet you still have trouble just thinking about being wrong, let alone, admitting it.
To my good friends Dr. Nutslikebush and The Other (Terrorist) Side
It is obvious that you are unable to get through the Wilson BS so here is the section that you obviously missed:
BLITZER: But the other argument that’s been made against you is that you’ve sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you’ve tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that. What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you? WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
///Why would a man make this statement if it were not true? Maybe it just slipped his mind. Or maybe he did not realize what a great game he could get involved in by lying about it later/////
BLITZER: But she hadn’t been a clandestine officer for some time before that?
WILSON: That’s not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I’ll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that’s why they referred it to the Justice Department.
———
Joe Wilson is a known and proven liar.
(opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005343)
July 4, 2004 Senate Intelligence Report
(justoneminute.typepad.com/footnotes/2004/07/excerpt_senate_.html)
Not a truth teller
(weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.asp)
A political hack full of hatred
(theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/2794-Joseph-Wilson-Reveals-Himself.html)
Provided misleading information
(washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html)
More Wilson lies:
1.) Wilson Stated That The Vice President’s Office Sent Him To Niger
2.) Wilson Claimed The Vice President And Other Senior White House Officials Were Briefed On His Niger Report
3.) Wilson Has Claimed His Niger Report Was Conclusive And Significant
4.) Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger In 2002
5.) Wilson Claimed His 1999 Trip To Niger Was Not Suggested By His Wife
6.) Wilson Claimed He Was A Victim Of A Partisan Smear Campaign
7.) A Month Before The Bob Novak And Matthew Cooper Articles Ever Came Out, Wilson Told The Washington Post That Previous Intelligence Reports About Niger Were Based On Forged Documents
8.) Wilson Claimed His Book Would Enrich Debate
9.) Wilson Claimed The CIA Provided Him With Information Related To The Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction
10.) Wilson Claimed He Is A Bipartison
Also please note in the transcript I provided:
BLITZER (voice-over): In his January, 2003 State of Union speech, President Bush building the case for war with Iraq, insinuated Saddam Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons. March 20, coalition forces invade Iraq. May 1, the president announces major operations are over. On July 6, 2003, Joe Wilson, the former U.S. ambassador to Gabon wrote in a “New York Times” opinion piece that he traveled to Africa in February, 2002, to investigate similar allegations for the CIA. His conclusion, it was — quote — “highly doubtful that such a transaction would have occurred.” On July 14, CNN political analyst Robert Novak wrote in his “Chicago Sun-Times” column, Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate. And that’s where the possible criminal case begins. Under a 1982 law, it’s a crime to reveal the name of an undercover CIA agent. But the burden of proof is high. Among other things, the disclosure must reveal the identity of a covert agent. It must be intentional. It must be made by someone with authorized access to classified information. And the source must be aware that the information disclosed will reveal the identity of the covert agent. In September, 2003, nearly three months after Novak’s column, the Justice Department opened an investigation.
You liberals’ burden of proof is obviously not very high. In fact, based on these last few emails alone, I would say that neither of you two have ever had a burden of proof in your entire lives.
When Novak found out about Plame from Richard Armitage (not Libby and certainly not anyone in the White House) he called over to the CIA and told them he was going to publish her name. He stated:
“First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson’s wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret. …
It was well known around Washington that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson’s “Who’s Who in America” entry.”
In order for Plame’s identification in Novak’s column to be considered violating the law, all the following elements of proof must be met:
1. The person who told Novak (or anyone else) had to have had access to classified information that identified Plame as covert. Even if the information is accurate, if the “leaker” did not learn it from classified sources, there is no violation of the law.
2. The disclosure of Plame’s covert status must have been intentional; this would seem easy to ascertain.
3. The person receiving the information, i.e., Novak, was not authorized to receive classified information; again, this would seem easy to prove.
4. The discloser must have known that the information identified Plame as covert.
5. The discloser must have known that the United States was taking positive actions to conceal Plame’s covert intelligence relationship to the US government.
Note well: all five of these things had to have happened in order for the law to have been violated. That will be very difficult to prove; in fact, the CIA itself seems to have shown that #5 was not being done. Novak writes,
“At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me … asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause “difficulties” if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson’s wife or anybody else would be endangered.”
If the CIA was taking affirmative actions to conceal Plame’s intelligence status, that’s a pretty weak way of heading off a reporter’s question, but no doubt that the official whom Novak interviewed will be extensively questioned by investigators.
Just because someone in the CIA says something or someone’s identity is classified does not make it true. The CIA is not the originator of the classification system for obvious reasons. The classification system exist outside and above the authority of any one agency in the government. Classified information is classified based on its content and not because an individual or agencies claim it is classified. Classifying information is critical to the success of the entire national intelligence community. If there is doubt as to what classification a document has or information is, then it is not classified. If one cannot determine without a doubt if something is Secret or just Confidential then it is automatically Confidential. This precludes the use of the classification to cover up wrong doing or mistakes.
Libby’s lawyers had asked Fitzgerald to produce evidence that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert agent at the CIA. They had also asked for an assessment of the damage, if any, caused by the exposure of her identity.
In papers filed with the court, Fitzgerald refused both requests. Now, in the courtroom, Judge Walton wanted to hear Fitzgerald’s reasons.
“Does the government intend to introduce any evidence that would relate to either damage or potential damage that the alleged revelations by Mr. Libby caused, or do you intend to introduce any evidence related to Ms. Wilson’s status and whether it was classified or she was in a covert status or anything of that nature?” Walton asked.
“We don’t intend to offer any proof of actual damage,” Fitzgerald said. “We’re not going to get into whether that would occur or not. It’s not part of the perjury statute.”(http://thehill.com/byron-york/plame-leak-probe-descends-into-absurdity-2006-05-11.html)
Based on the above, I do not believe that Plame was a covert agent as Wilson admitted in his interview with Blitzer. It all turned into a liberal attempt at discrediting a sitting president whom liberals hate and despise.
Unlike you two, I admit that I could be wrong. But then again, I am that insane moronic dufus who is just a poor dumb conservative unable to think past is nose. But you guys still make me laugh at your tap dancing, rationalizing and discounting the possibilities, tiny as they are, that you both just might be wrong.
I have stated here on many different occasions that I do not intend to change a liberal’s mind with what I wrote. That is impossible since a liberal – by my definition – has no mind to change. Minions are called minions because they follow a cause no matter how ridiculous and evil.
My goal is to show why conservatives believe what they do and it is based on information and the logical analysis of this information. As an insane moronic dufus, I have been trained in the art of textual analysis, to pick out the logical inconsistencies of what is in the text.
Joe Wilson stated that Plame was not a clandestine officer at the time of the leak. Why would he say such a thing unless it is true. His tap dancing and rationalization throughout the other parts of the interview and in other interviews are just that – lies and deception. The one fact that sticks out above all else is “not a clandestine officer.” Couple this with the rather lax attitude of the PR guy at CIA toward Novak’s inquiry into Plame’s status and I now have two solid facts to come to my logical beliefs.
Number one, Wilson admits that Plame was not an officer or agent. This before things got really out of hand and the liberal attack dogs got to work.
Number two, the CIA was not overly concerned about her status as an agent. Once more this before things got ugly. After the whole thing blew up, we see people (all of the liberal persuasion) changing their tune and trying to bet traction with this “Bush Scandal.”
Number three, Richard Armitage was not charged with leaking an agent’s name.
Number three is huge in this entire process because if what you say is true then he, the absolute known leaker, should be charged with a serious crime. You rant and rave about the White House and feel that Rove or somebody else should be thrown into jail, yet here you have the real leaker and you have shown no interest in throwing him in jail. Also no one in the special prosecutor’s office (who knew a long time ago who leaked the information) had no interest in charging Mr. Armitage with the crime. Ever wonder why?
Sorry, I just do not buy it. Fitzpatrick could have slammed the whole thing shut by providing proof of Plame’s status and the damage it had caused to national security. He refused to do it because he had no such proof and if he had no such proof, then he had no case in which to pursue. Why didn’t he go after the known leaker instead, Mr. Armitage. Fitzpatrick’s name, IMHO, will be placed on the list of possible AGs if a liberal gets into the White House. That has been his motivation from day one (once again IMHO)
I have good reason to believe this whole Plame thing was a charade. His name his Joe Wilson – just another proven liberal liar.
BTW, we all know it was Richard Armitage who leaked the information to Novak and not anyone in the Bush White House. Your statement, therefore, brings serious doubts about your credibility as a human being. But then, as a liberal, you simply have no credibility. Of course, as an insane moronic dufus, I might be wrong about that as well.
The questions still remain: why did Wilson state publicly that she was not a clandestine officer at the time of the leak; why did the CIA treat the inquiry made by Novak with such nonchalance if she was so vital to national security; and why didn’t the special prosecutor go after the person they knew leaked the information? These three statements of facts do not prove that she was not an agent, but they do bring serious doubt about criminal activity on the part of the leaker and Novak. Let me remind you once again, that Libby was convicted of perjury only. His trial was not about the Plame leak even though that was the reason for the special prosecutor. You liberals continue to believe in your heart of hearts that the White House had something to do with the leak. It has been proven that they did not.
To correct a previous lie posted by the mean spirited and truth challenged ChinaHill
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (IIPA) amended United States Code Title 50 Chapter 15 to provide, in part:
Subchapter IV Protection of Certain National Security Information
Section 426 Definitions
(4) The term “covert agent” means -
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or…
ChinaHill,
You have confused laughing with shrieking. You are most definitely a shriek at liberals type. and you are motivated by only pure hate. only a lack of self insight could enable you to not see this.
1. In a court filing in May, special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald stated Wilson was covert:
An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame’s employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was “covert” when her name became public in July 2003.
If Fitzgerald submitted false documents to the court, we can assume the jackals on the right would have found this out by now and his head would be on a pike.
2. Valerie Wilson’s sworn testimony before the Oversight Committee of the House of Representatives:
” I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified.”
Same as above. Wilson would be facing prison right now for lying under oath, if Republicans had evidence that this statement was false.
3. The CIA has said Wilson was covert — twice:
At the Oversight hearing in March, Chairman Henry Waxman, D-West Hollywood, read a statement that had been approved by the head of the CIA, Gen. Michael Hayden, a Bush appointee:
“During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14 — Step Six under the federal pay scale. Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA. Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.”
Two months after she was outed, the CIA described Wilson as being an “undercover operative” in a letter to the Dept. of Justice:
On September 16, 2003 the CIA sent a letter to the US Department of Justice, asserting that Plame’s status as a CIA undercover operative was classified information and requesting a federal investigation. Knowingly leaking the identity of a covert agent is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), and the CIA is required by law to report any such possible criminal violation.
Leaving IIPA aside, the Bush officials who publicized Wilson’s name clearly violated the terms of their high level security clearances.
ChinaHill,
In the very document that you linked to contradicted what you said. He explicitly said she WAS covert. How could you even try to pretend to believe it said something else. Did you read the thing? Also, the CIA said she was covert, the US Attorney said she was covert, and a US Congressional investigation concluded that she was covert. You simply have to be deluded to keep believing anyone who said that she wasn’t. Your Alice in Wonderland mentality is amazing.
ChinaHill,
For the umteenth time, the Iraqi parliament declared the agreement unconstitutional (as in, it is against their law). I did not imply that it was against US law or against the US constitution or that Bush did anything wrong in this case. Now I will try to explain this in elementary school-level terms so it won’t be too far over your head. The point was that the agreement was in violation of the laws of Iraq, so the Iraqi parliament could not accept it. Fairly simple point. But it seems like you jumped to some other completely different interpretation and conclusions. But why should that surprise anyone? You must pass all information through an inverting prism and then tag on some trash that is floating around in your imagination before you are comfortable with it.
chinahill, there are 10 million missing white house emails. bush uses executive privelage to prevent congress from getting answers. libby prevented fitzgerald from learning more about the leak because he lied (and got charged for it). the white house won’t comment on ongoing investigations (libby, gonzales) and then when they are finished, still won’t comment. bush uses signing statments to attach his own rules to bills without anyone knowing. how can congress retrieve any information from this administration? subpoena them? Congress is begining to use their constitutional power to get answers, but i’m still not sure if the administration aides with be honest or even appear.
and whats the deal with conservatives and their obsession with clinton? yeah he lied to congress, but it was about an affair. and why was the republican congress digging so deep into the personal affairs of someone? to protect the integrety of the presidency?
its hard to defend the amount of secrecy from this administration, especially after they lose their credibility, like with iran. america needs to be skeptical of the administration, or any administration for that matter. why can’t they be honest with the american people. its not like they need to tell everything.
its interesting to debate chinahill because no matter what i say, he’ll blame my liberalism then list off his “standard liberal operating procedures”. by the way, its getting old. just because chinahill thinks something is a lie doesn’t mean that it is a lie. his extreme bias ruins his credibility and judgment on the topic (only liberals lie).
oh, btw…she was covert at the time of the leak based on her unclassified employment record, msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/. its been reported over and over again yet chinahill needs to find some obscure quote that is taken out of context. is this the quote that leads you to believe that wilson said plame wasn’t covert, “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.” it took me a while to find it, but he mentioned earlier in the interview that she was covert. do you not believe an article written by the evil liberal media but do believe a quote, from the liberal media no less? if thats the case then you’re stretching “facts” to fit you dislike of liberals instead of objectively looking at whats out there.
it shouldn’t be this hard to prove that valerie plame was covert. if chinahill cannot believe facts like this then its one more chop at his already shaky credibility. but i guess thats me being elitist, sarcasm.
The only thing we should even consider on the middle east situation is as follows……Hydrogen BOMBS
The Other (Terrorist) Side,
Duhhh, liberal. Let me see if I can grasp what little logic you bring to this comment section.
You call the President corrupt but you say you have no proof to back your charges of corruption up because the President has covered it up successfully. Mmmmm. This means you know he covered up this corruption but you do not have the proof of this cover-up either. Am I close to your logic with this paragraph?
Tell me in detail what is it that you don’t have the most proof of, the cover-up or the corruption? Just how much of this proof do you not have? How do you measure the validity of the proof that you don’t have so that you can determine the amount of cover-up or the amount of corruption? I am really interested to know what amount of this no proof it took to convince you that: 1) the president is corrupt 2) the president has successfully covered up the corruption.
Please, I am an insane moron so I really do need to know in the tiniest of details what measurements you used in your determination that Bush is corrupt. You seem to state that you had nothing to measure in order to come to with the conclusion that Bush is corrupt and he is covering all this corruption up. This could be a very valuable tool that all of us conservatives can use in our daily lives. You know, like determining the grades of our students when we have not seen any evidence of the scores they made on their tests. The list of such things could go on and on and if properly applied, could make all of our lives much easier. None of us would have to worry about looking over information when determining what car, house or shirt to buy. We would just know instinctively what is the right decision on all matters of life. Research companies would then go out of business. Wait! This is probably a bad idea as research departments are big business in most organizations. Bad for the economy as most liberal ideas tend to be.
AS to the Bush scandals, please give me your definition of a scandal. For me a scandal is something that is proven to have occurred like your dear beloved Clinton not having “sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky” only to find out later (after she reminded him of the blue dress and the stains) that he did. Evidence plays a major role in logical thought processes, at least to normal human beings who have not been tainted with the liberal poison that is being passed out at many of our liberal universities. You obviously have been well-poisoned in this respect.
How can I laugh at liberals and hate them at the same time? I am not capable of that type of mental gymnastics as I have stated on several other occasions. You guys make me laugh every day and my students think it is because I am just a fun-loving guy. I appreciate liberals in their inability to grasp even the most basic understanding of logical thought. When a liberal makes a statement, he or she honestly believes that what they state is the truth. Believe it down to the depths of their heart, they do! Maybe this is because you guys tend to listen to liberal news outlets (MSM), watch only liberal TV, read only liberal magazines and have only liberal friends. MMmmm, does make me wonder what is the true nature of your visits to this website.
The only truthful thing you wrote in the above comment is that I will request evidence for all of your statements. Absolutely! I am not a liberal and thus I require just a tad bit more than your word on any of your statements. Maybe you could do some review of what is considered to be normal and acceptable human conversational techniques before you finish one of your comments. You make a statement of fact, you must (meeting the standard form of human interactive speech) also provide what your facts are based upon. This is not really advice, because I simply am not capable of giving advice, being an insane moron and all. I am just suggesting that you think about the evidence you have and present it right along with your “factual statements.” Prove once and for all that I am an insane moron for laughing at you liberals every day.
I am not smearing liberals here, I am laughing at them. Huge difference! I did not call Bush corrupt, you did. Do I need to provide evidence that you, indeed, called Bush corrupt? The evidence is the very comments that you are making. You and the other liberals are the ones who are smearing, we conservatives, at least at this site, are just laughing at you and pointing out why we laugh so hard. If calling you a liberal is smearing you, then I stand corrected because I most definitely am calling you a liberal!
Oh, BTW, the reason that I doubt that Ms. Valerie Plame was a covert agent is because her husband, Joe Wilson, stated she was not. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html)
The law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a “covert agent” must have been on an overseas assignment “within the last five years.” The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006961)
Notice the evidence that I provide for my beliefs unlike liberals.
Oh, Dr. Nutslikebush,
Your personal attack almost worked. I was laughing so hard I forgot to ask you about the unconstitutionality of Bush’s agreement signing with another head-of-state. In you haste to attack me, you forgot to send me the proof required to show what a moron I am. As it stands now, you are proving yourself a lot dumber than a moron – a liberal.
Inflatable Asian!
Talk about a sit-down comedian! I read this and am still laughing. I must really have you spinning with my “magic fairy dust,” huh, doctor? Why not send a comment talking about my mother or my father and their illicit relations with creatures not of the human race? That would certainly qualify you, in my mind, to be a stand-up comedian. Your personal attacks will be the death of me, sending me to the hospital from having my intestines burst from my abdomen with uninterrupted laughter. Please, doctor, you are too funny.
Magic fairy dust. Ya gotta love it!
ChinaHill,
I don’t think that the conservatives are going to claim you either. But as long as you have your inflatable Asian I am sure you will be fine.
of course the president has to sign the bills into law, thats called checks and balances. but when one branch of the government is so immovable it defeats the purpose. compromise has to be made but bush cannot change is stubborn beliefs or ways.
no one on this site addresses the schip bill, which was passed with bipartisian support (at least bipartisian in this congress). i agree that this congress is doing stupid things like passing bills that will be vetoed, but bush needs to understand that congress isn’t his rubber stamp anymore. thats one of the reasons why i dislike bush and his policies. he thinks he can get anything he wants and then when he doesn’t he whines (look at his request for almost $200 million for iraq and his chastising of congress when they don’t pass exactly what he wants).
chinahill, do you believe that every single scandal that has occured under the bush presidency is an attempt by congress to support the terrorists and discredit bush? that says that you hate liberals so much that you don’t believe reality. you must be getting pretty pissed because you aren’t saying anything that makes sense anymore.
the reason why congress is so bogged down with scandals is because they needed to do oversight that was lacking for the past six years. the reason why congress cannot “catch any of these fish” is because of bush’s perverse use of executive privelage and deleted emails (which is illegal according to the Presidential Records Act). why is the bush administration hiding so much?
you will probably attack me and ask for more evidence supporting my claims. but you also need to back up you liberal smearing with evidence. like how are liberals supporting terrorism?
Well now, it should be obvious to all who are keeping up with this dialogue why I enjoy being here so much. Dr. Nutslikbush truly just placed a masterfully funny comment above. So in his mind, if someone dare question his infallible analysis of Bush’s unconstitutional behavior, that person is a harmless, moronic dufus.
BTW, my wife is an Asian female and she has not run away for the last 33 years. Guess this can be added to the growing list of lies that have come from the pen of the good doctor since I arrived on the scene.
My brother and I love each other dearly and we have been punching on each other rhetorically for over thirty years. Seems this appears to be another false allegation of the good doctor. Amazing, isn’t it, how liberals just cannot help but lie. As I have stated in my theory, the liberal philosophy is like a quilt (simile) tied together with illogical and lying knots. In order for them to continue to cover themselves and keep themselves warm, the knots must beheld tightly together and added to frequently. Lying is thus second nature to most of the liberals I have met and with whom I have discussed politics.
Now notice several things about the above Dr. Nutslikebush comments. First and foremost, Dr. Nutslikebush is continuing his personal attacks on a poor backward conservative he considers to be a moron. So tolerant of him, don’t you agree?
Second, the good doctor has refused to address his lie about Bush and the unconstitutionality of the agreement he has signed with the Iraqi PM. It was a lie and we both know it, otherwise he would have quickly sent me article and line number from the US Constitution to support his statement. Welcome to the world of the liberal elite. All they have to do is make a statement and it becomes factual (at least in their minds).
Third, if you have been reading my comments, you will find that I have never ever been offended by liberals. How can one be offended and be laughing at the same time? Liberals may be able to do this unique mental acrobatics, but I simply do not have that much brain power, being a moron.
Fourth, I never stated anywhere in any of my comments (in poetry one does have the license to use figurative language) that I hate liberals. I do despise their political philosophy because of what it does to seemingly normal Americans. Take the good doctor, as an example. Seemingly normal but look how nasty and vindictive he has become simply because someone (even a moron like me) questioned his conclusions about current information.
Standard liberal operating procedures: when caught in a lie, attack. When that does not work, attack the character of your opponent. When that brings out laughter, change the subject in hopes of not having to address the original liberal lie.
Please show more concern with my “moronism” and provide us all here at this website the proof that Bush’s agreement with Iraq is unconstitutional. As you have seen in the recent past, if I am wrong, I will readily admit my failures of perception and analysis. Can you say the same for your own brilliant rendition of human thought or are you still maintaining the liberal attitude of superiority?
We all await with great anticipation your evidence to show that I am truly a moron and that you truly are the brilliant liberal thinker you would have us believe.
Adam,
Because SOME liberals (maybe 1/100th of 1 percent) have said things that offend ChinaHill, he thinks that ALL liberals (and nonpartisans, who he tosses in the same category with liberals for convenience and because he is an intellectual slob) are reviled creatures (but mostly he just hates his brother who apparently used to beat him like a baby seal when they were younger). ChinaHill is fun to screw around with, but he is basically harmless – unless you are an Asian female, in which case, get away while you can!
To Dr. Nutslikebush,
“But I know that we are never leaving Iraq. I am just dreaming. In fact, last week Bush signed an agreement (an unconstitutional one) with Maliki promising to keep American troops in Iraq on permanent American owned and operated bases essentially forever.”
I am not an Iraqi and neither is Bush. The Iraqi constitution is meaningless to all of us Americans. The President of the United States has the constitutional authority to carry out foreign affairs. Agreements do not need to be ratified by Congress. To call such an agreement unconstitutional, once more, speaks volumes about where you are on the political spectrum.
I still maintain that you are neither a US constitutional lawyer nor are you an Iraqi constitutional lawyer, brilliant as you think you are. No constitutional lawyer spoke up nor did any of your liberal elite Congressmen question Bush’s authority to sign such an agreement. How then is it unconstitutional (Iraq’s constitution does not supersede that of the US Constitution as much as you would like it to)?
You have obviously broken into my personal records illegally. How else would you have found out that I am a moron. Shall I contact my lawyers to try to find out how you found the truth about me being a moron? I do not recall giving you authorization to search my personal records online or off line. Does this mean you have violated my rights as a citizen?
Naughty, naughty good doctor. Did you determine that I was a moron and a dufus (whatever that means) because I dared question your conclusions about foreign affairs in American politics? Will I also become a moron each time I question your ability to apply logic to information that you have? Does the concept of liberal elitism apply to you when you call a person a moron simply for disagreeing with you?
As to the excuses you give for Congress doing pretty much zero, well guess what? All laws from the legislative branch must be signed by the President to become laws. This, of course, means he must approve of the bill that Congress is passing. Duhhhh, been that way from the very beginning of the country. The liberals in Congress know this to be a fact and so to pass a bill knowing full well that the President will veto it, is called politics and not serious legislation.
The liberal Congress has been mickey mousing around with what I call “fishing in empty ponds” in hopes of catching a Bush scandal. Since most if not all of the Bush “scandals” have been made up to support the terrorists in Iraq by discrediting Bush, Congress has utterly failed to catch any of these fish.
You liberals must really get locked jawed to see only one person convicted in this evil nest of corruption that you think is the Bush administration. Care to count the indictments and convictions of your very own Clinton? You guys will have to indict at least one person every other day and hope for massive amounts of convictions over the next year to even have a shot at what the Clinton administration accomplished in this arena.
Standard liberal operating procedures: when caught in a lie, attack the person by calling him or her a moron or a dufus (whatever that is supposed to mean). I know, you are just retaliating for all those evil and ugly names (liberal) I have called you over the last few weeks. Dufus, you say. Does that mean I also have a painted face as well?
CH,
I hate to add fuel to you fire, but I think Tom Burka captures your exact sentiment in his Dec 4 article.
tomburka.com
I think I found a friend for you.
CH,
For a moment I thought that you had your face paint on too. But then I realized that that vertical smile wasn’t painted, and it wasn’t your face that was on display here.
CH,
Hint: TheOtherSide visits this site every couple of weeks. So if he/she doesn’t reply to you immediately don’t get all excited and start doing your endzone dance quite yet.
CH,
for your perusal.
arabtimesonline.com/kuwaitnews/pagesdetails.asp?nid=8499&ccid=12
The Iraqi parliament declare it unconstitutional under the Iraq constitution, dufus. You are so blindingly stupid you don’t even understand simple english sentences. You truly are a moron, ChinaHill. If you understood half of what was said your wouldn’t have such idiotic views.
To Adam Yale,
Websites do not rip anything apart except lies and deception. This websites does not rip the country apart, just gives us fodder so we can laugh.
Why not go to http://www.moveon.org/ to see what this website is countering. We here are deflecting the lies and deceptions thrown at us by the liberal left. You do not read hate-filled, vile comments here pointed at the leaders of America. No, here you will find, fun-filled, logically thought out rebuttals to what is wrong with the political scene in America – bipartisanship. To call the current President of the U.S or any elected President, Hitler goes beyond common political discourse. It crosses the line of what being an American is all about – tolerance for differing opinions.
Ripping America apart? Look to those who began the ripping by their lies in Florida in 2000 and then the building crescendo of lies and deceptions about 9/11, Saddam and al Qaeda. Hate is as hate speaks.
Calling an agreement signed by the President and the head-of-state of another country unconstitutional speaks volumes about who is causing the “ripping apart” of America. Common practice among all practicing liberal left-wing, socialist wannabes. Common ground does not start by false accusations and calling someone a mass murderer.
the reason why the congress didn’t accomplish anything is because the republicans are on pace to filibuster the most bills in history. democrats don’t have the sixty votes for cloture. after that hurdle, democrats don’t have nearly enough votes (sixty-six) to override most vetos, except one. bush vetoed the bipartisan schip bill for gosh sakes. saying that this congress hasn’t accomplished anything is a cheap shot. they passed the minimum raise increase, ethics and lobbying reform and the 9-11 commission report recommendations. and they aren’t a blank check like the former republican led congress who actually had more pork spending.
For lib’rals hold all truth that’s known
Of human knowledge all their own
Unconstitutional? You obviously are not a constitutional lawyer. Read your articles more carefully – agreement is not a treaty. I noticed all those constitutional lawyers jumped on the bandwagon and condemned the AGREEMENT like the liberal MSM. No, wait, they did not. Duhhhh, I wonder why?
Lackluster session you say. Is that for the Iraqi Parliament or the liberal Congress? And as far as hate goes, suggest you see how the liberals in Congress feel about Bush and conservatives. Your comments accusing the President of doing something unconstitutional show your hatred more than you probably can ever understand.
Also you might what to reread my comments about The Other Side. Question marks at the end of questions mean that I am looking for answers. I really laughed when you accused me of trying to destroy the constitution. This, especially since I took an oath to uphold it. Seems to me you are the one slinging the hate-filled comments about today. I simply asked some legitimate question concerning the parallels of al Qaeda’s propaganda and the propaganda of both you and The Other (Terrorist) Side.
Wonder why he did not answer my questions? Instead you defended him by blatantly attacking me with absolutely false statements. What? I dare not ask relevant questions of liberals?
Is that face paint I see on your face, this afternoon?
Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of Britain visited Iraq yesterday and declared victory and announced that the British troops are deploying out of Iraq. Britain will be down to 2500 troops in a couple of months and probably out completely by next year (they currently have about 5000 troops in Iraq). We can’t even pretend there is a coalition helping out in Iraq any more.
Perhaps it’s time to dust off the old Mission Accomplished banners and follow Britain’s lead.
People say that leaving would send the wrong message to the terrorists. For the life of me, why would anyone care what the terrorists think? Are we trying to impress them? They will think what they will think. Nothing we do matters one way or another with respect to what they think. They are less than nothing to me. They have the capacity to slightly annoy the US but really they are only what we allow them to be by freaking out when they make their silly videos or whatever. If you really don’t like Al Qaeda, stop sending them your money through the gas pump. That is where 100% of their money comes from, you know.
But I know that we are never leaving Iraq. I am just dreaming. In fact, last week Bush signed an agreement (an unconstitutional one) with Maliki promising to keep American troops in Iraq on permanent American owned and operated bases essentially forever. Remind me what we could ever hope to get from being there? There is nothing whatsoever in the middle east that we are interested in except ….. (you fill in the blank). It certainly only jeopardizes our security and damages our military to be there.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi parliament began another month-long vacation after another lackluster session since they returned from their recent 2-month summer vacation (unless you count their declaration of the Kurd/US oil agreements to be unconstitutional as an accomplishment). The Iraqi parliament rarely made a quorum even before another 44 Sunni members of the parliament last week announced that they will boycott the next session of parliament in protest of Maliki’s most recent anti-sunni cabinet appointments. If they can’t hold parliamentary sessions how are they going to get started building a government? Three years and three failures to launch later, they are less close to having a government than they were on the day of their celebrated election (in which they voted for people whom they had never heard of in their lives. They just voted straight religious party lines. Now that’s democracy at its …..) All of the members of parliament live in the Green Zone. So security isn’t, and never has been, the problem for their government. The problem is that their elected representatives hate each other with all of their hearts and can’t stand the idea of sharing a government with people they despise.
I rarely tune into American media but I assume that the declaration of the Kurd oil agreements with the US to be unconstitutional was the major news on TV and in the papers this weekend. I don’t know what the American people know any more. But we are creeping up on a trillion dollars spent there so far (discounting the huge indirect costs which may be a trillion or more additional dollars) and it makes sense to attend to how your hard earned money (and money borrowed from countries like Japan and China against your good name and credit) is being invested.
Wow. I just stumbled onto this website. All I can say is as long as Americans keep pointing fingers at each other and calling each other “liberal” and “conservative,” things are only going to get worse. If we keep labeling each other and trying to one-up each other with this petty arguments, nothing is going to change. These labels lost their true definitions a long time ago.
This website is helping to RIP AMERICA APART. It’s a virtual Civil War II via the internet. Thanks to whoever made this site. You’re making things worse for the future generations of America.