Getting a blow job in the oval office...

[daveman]

Actually Dave, it's people like us who serve/have served our country to enable home-at-Mom punks like that the freedom to post their pathetic drivel.

Yup. "It is the Soldier, not the Poet, who has given us freedom of speech."

 

[Warrior102]

Actually Dave, it's people like us who serve/have served our country to enable home-at-Mom punks like that the freedom to post their pathetic drivel.

Is that you in the picture? I think I have seen you living in a fridge box on the streets in Philly. Hope you are like the rest of the vets and you live on the streets with the rats. Have a nice day!!!

Another "asswipe" quality post from you. Wow.

And you wonder why you get neg repp'd ?

Keep this as a reminder as to why you do.

Run along now Little Johnny.... play time's over.

 

[Full-Auto]

Actually Dave, it's people like us who serve/have served our country to enable home-at-Mom punks like that the freedom to post their pathetic drivel.

Yup. "It is the Soldier, not the Poet, who has given us freedom of speech."

The phrase. STUCK ON STUPID applies.

 

[Sallow]

You don't know about a lot of stuff, and frankly, I don't have time to link corrections to your profound ignorance. Personally, though, I think your problem is paranoia, and we have medicines for that now. Avail yourself of some.

Of course you don't have a link. Because you have no idea what you are talking about. Spies are universally subject to execution if caught in another country.

No, they're not.

That's why when GW Bush outed a CIA agent, effectively ending her career and exposing her to danger, he should have been impeached.

Which is also why you have to now resort to personal insults.

Arguing with adults is hard, ain't it?

Bush didn't out her. Her husband did, and Armitage did.

1. Of course they are not. That's not the point...and you know it.

2. Everyone but Bush..eh?

 

[daveman]

That is factually incorrect.

Actually it isn't.

You can quibble about plausible deniability..but it's reasonable to assume something of this magnitude came directly from the White House.

No, not really.

Let's review, one more time.

Robert Novak asks Richard Armitage how the hell a HOUSE HUSBAND could have possibly been sent on a secret mission by the CIA. Richard Armitage mutters, "Well, his wife is an analyst at the CIA". He calls Karl Rove, and asks if that's true. Rove says, "Yeah, I heard that." So far, nothing illegal, because she's an analyst, not an operative. Also, neither of these guys mentioned her by name.

So Novak opens up a copy of "WHo's Who in America" and finds out former ambassador and current house husband Joe Wilson is married to Valerie Plame, who works at the CIA. In short, the CIA was cleverly listing the names of their super secret spies in a publicly available book. Wow, that's clever.

When, Why Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame | Sweetness & Light

Incidently, one more point about Joe Wilson. In February, 2003, he authored an article entitled "A big cat with nothing to lose" where he claimed we shouldn't attack Iraq because Saddam HAD weapons of mass destuction.

A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose - Los Angeles Times.

This was only a few weeks after Bush had made the speech where Wilson "knew" he was lying about WMD's.

No, wait! Truthout has proof!

 

[daveman]

What exactly was a CIA chief doing in an embassy?

Shades of what happened to Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and operation Ajax?

No. CIA chiefs of station are routinely posted to US embassies.

Station chiefs are the head spook in each country, responsible for intelligence gathering.

And of course there's some sort of international treaty that allows for this..right?

Why does there have to be a treaty? Everyone spies on everyone else. It's just a simple fact of life. Each nation operates to support their own interests. No nation is going to look out for another's interests to the detriment of their own.

 

[American Horse]

not so big a deal now is it?

It never was a big deal.

It was the lying about it that offended.

But these days lies are the norm and truth is persecuted.

Equality of outcome and all that liberal jazz.

Lying?

Like when Ken Starr lied to Lewinsky about prosecuting her parents and didn't let her talk to her lawyer?

Lying like that?

Clinton didn't lie..actually.

Within the construct of the question he was asked..he told the truth.

SOP for Grand Juries. The same sort of thing that put Scooter Libby in prison.

 

[T-Bor]

Actually Dave, it's people like us who serve/have served our country to enable home-at-Mom punks like that the freedom to post their pathetic drivel.

Is that you in the picture? I think I have seen you living in a fridge box on the streets in Philly. Hope you are like the rest of the vets and you live on the streets with the rats. Have a nice day!!!

Another "asswipe" quality post from you. Wow.

And you wonder why you get neg repp'd ?

Keep this as a reminder as to why you do.

Run along now Little Johnny.... play time's over.

LOL you still want to play with me little boy? I have all day today... Wanna keep playing? Again is that you in the pic? And you call me an asswipe? LOL. Look in the mirror lately?

You are a bloody nardless newbie twit protohominid chromosomally aberrant caricature of a coprophagic cloacal parasitic pond scum and I wish you would go away.

Have a nice day!!!!

 

[daveman]

And that's kosher?

There is now an international treaty that says spooks are welcome in every country?

Really?

I didn't know about that..got a link?

You're kidding, right? Every major player does it. If Country X throws a hissy fit about intelligence officers in its borders, it runs the risk of having its own officers detained and deported or imprisoned.

There are two types of spooks: Legal and illegal. Legal spooks are covered under a diplomatic identity, and are inviolate. The host nation may kick them out, but may not prosecute them if their activities are discovered.

Illegal spooks are on their own and subject to host nation laws if caught. The best they can hope for is a prisoner exchange.

I know the game.

But there's nothing above board about it.

It's a wink, nudge, cloak and dagger thing.

No shit, dood. "Hey, Putin, you mind if we spy on you today?"

 

[Sallow]

It never was a big deal.

It was the lying about it that offended.

But these days lies are the norm and truth is persecuted.

Equality of outcome and all that liberal jazz.

Lying?

Like when Ken Starr lied to Lewinsky about prosecuting her parents and didn't let her talk to her lawyer?

Lying like that?

Clinton didn't lie..actually.

Within the construct of the question he was asked..he told the truth.

SOP for Grand Juries. The same sort of thing that put Scooter Libby in prison.

Actually..I agree with you on this.

Good point.

 

[daveman]

Actually Dave, it's people like us who serve/have served our country to enable home-at-Mom punks like that the freedom to post their pathetic drivel.

Yup. "It is the Soldier, not the Poet, who has given us freedom of speech."

The phrase. STUCK ON STUPID applies.

The little boy sure is angry, isn't he? I think he's mad because school's about to start and he has to repeat a grade.

 

[daveman]

Of course you don't have a link. Because you have no idea what you are talking about. Spies are universally subject to execution if caught in another country.

No, they're not.

That's why when GW Bush outed a CIA agent, effectively ending her career and exposing her to danger, he should have been impeached.

Which is also why you have to now resort to personal insults.

Arguing with adults is hard, ain't it?

Bush didn't out her. Her husband did, and Armitage did.

1. Of course they are not. That's not the point...and you know it.

I really don't know why you're so worked up about this. Are you upset that every nation does it, or just the US?

2. Everyone but Bush..eh?

I really can't help it if you don't like what the investigation came up with.

 

[Sallow]

You're kidding, right? Every major player does it. If Country X throws a hissy fit about intelligence officers in its borders, it runs the risk of having its own officers detained and deported or imprisoned.

There are two types of spooks: Legal and illegal. Legal spooks are covered under a diplomatic identity, and are inviolate. The host nation may kick them out, but may not prosecute them if their activities are discovered.

Illegal spooks are on their own and subject to host nation laws if caught. The best they can hope for is a prisoner exchange.

I know the game.

But there's nothing above board about it.

It's a wink, nudge, cloak and dagger thing.

No shit, dood. "Hey, Putin, you mind if we spy on you today?"

Putin: "No prob..brosky..as long as you ship our hot looking spies back in one piecesky.."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OMOYg_99Q8]‪Alleged Russian spy speaks‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

No, they're not.

Bush didn't out her. Her husband did, and Armitage did.

1. Of course they are not. That's not the point...and you know it.

I really don't know why you're so worked up about this. Are you upset that every nation does it, or just the US?

2. Everyone but Bush..eh?

I really can't help it if you don't like what the investigation came up with.

Erm..I don't really give a rat's ass about the spy thing..but one shouldn't go around saying it's a normal legal policy..it isn't.

And there's still tremendous risk for CIA operatives worldwide.

And the investigation was milquetoast at best and didn't go far enough. They stopped, and probably because anything further would have compromised national security.

 

[T-Bor]

It's hilarious how many pages a post about a blow job can spawn, is it not?

 

[Too Tall]

It's hilarious how many pages a post about a blow job can spawn, is it not?

What is even funnier is how many fools think that obstruction of justice and perjury are not crimes if committed by their idol.

 

[Hoot]

Hoot, here's the problem. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 (including two Clinton appointees) that Paula Jones was entitled to a day in court.

Now, that was taking it too far, as far as I'm concerned. The woman wanted $250,000, and can anyone really doubt at this point that what she claimed happened did? (Well, Shallow will, but he's operating in some odd alternate universe.)

Clinton had several options at that point. He could have settled. He could have just let the court proceedings go on and let the chips fall where they may. He chose to lie, to encourage others to lie, and let what you call a petty civil matter drag on through the courts for years.

Yes, this is a bullshit case. You know what, we have a million lawyers in this country, and Mr. Clinton's party is owned by the trial lawyers, and every year, they find bullshit reasons to file cases and take from the producers in society. He was the one who ran on the "I believe Anita Hill" platform. He's the one who expanded the rights of women to sue their employers, co-workers, and so on to where every company has to have these silly classes on how strange looks and dirty jokes are unacceptable.

So, no, I can't feel really bad that he got put through the wringer over a civil case, and less bad because he abused his office to avoid it and got impeached for it.

The bottom line, no President should have to face charges in Civil court while in the performance of his duties, which is 24/7. Paula Jones waited until the last possible day before the statute of limitations ran out. No one ever said she couldn't have her day in court, but in this instance, the GOP put the needs of one woman over the needs of an entire nation who expects to have a president who can focus on the job.

As far as I'm concerned, every president should have a stable of concubines at his disposal.

 

[JoeB131]

[No, wait! Truthout has proof!

Dude, that was wrong on so many levels...

 

[Full-Auto]

Hoot, here's the problem. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 (including two Clinton appointees) that Paula Jones was entitled to a day in court.

Now, that was taking it too far, as far as I'm concerned. The woman wanted $250,000, and can anyone really doubt at this point that what she claimed happened did? (Well, Shallow will, but he's operating in some odd alternate universe.)

Clinton had several options at that point. He could have settled. He could have just let the court proceedings go on and let the chips fall where they may. He chose to lie, to encourage others to lie, and let what you call a petty civil matter drag on through the courts for years.

Yes, this is a bullshit case. You know what, we have a million lawyers in this country, and Mr. Clinton's party is owned by the trial lawyers, and every year, they find bullshit reasons to file cases and take from the producers in society. He was the one who ran on the "I believe Anita Hill" platform. He's the one who expanded the rights of women to sue their employers, co-workers, and so on to where every company has to have these silly classes on how strange looks and dirty jokes are unacceptable.

So, no, I can't feel really bad that he got put through the wringer over a civil case, and less bad because he abused his office to avoid it and got impeached for it.

The bottom line, no President should have to face charges in Civil court while in the performance of his duties, which is 24/7. Paula Jones waited until the last possible day before the statute of limitations ran out. No one ever said she couldn't have her day in court, but in this instance, the GOP put the needs of one woman over the needs of an entire nation who expects to have a president who can focus on the job.

As far as I'm concerned, every president should have a stable of concubines at his disposal.

The bottom line, no President should have to face charges in Civil court while in the performance of his duties,

Then crown the bastard king.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh gosh.

This is amazing. Another very clear cut example of a tremendous government screw up and topped with a President lying..and you look for little legal wranglings to justify your point. The President said his administration had nothing to do with the leak..and if they had something to do with the leak..those involved would get procecuted. And then they fought tooth and nail to make sure that outcome did not happen. Cheney's own aid took the hit for that.

Well, gee, then FitzFong spent millions of dollars trying to prove that and three years of investigating, and all he proved was that Scooter Libby didn't clearly remember what he said to Tim Russert. but he got a liberal judge to support him a jury of D.C. Welfare queens to hang a Republican out to dry.

Frankly, all this was is a lot of inside poker in Washington. The CIA told Bush it was a "Slam dunk" that Saddam had WMD's. Those were George Tenat's exact words. It's like any other large organization when something goes wrong, there's a lot of finger pointing. The CIA tried to say, "Not our fault" and the Administrations said, "Uh, yeah, you were in the room."

Like I said, where's the proof that Bush or Rove actually committed a crime, and why didn't FitzFong present THAT to a jury?

This is the problem with Special Prosecutors in General. They start out investigating one thing, can't make that case, try to get someone on something- anything - to justify the money spent and time wasted.

Hells, bells, I even put Starr in that category. He started out investigating a crooked land deal, couldn't get Clinton on that, and wound up investigating lying about a blow job.

But Starr presented evidence that the president he was after lied. Walsh didn't. FitzFong didn't.