Trouble Pending on the Homefront?

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,716
Reaction score
15,127
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
I realize that this may be just an opinion, but here goes.... for discussion purposes!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003699882_webmckayforum09m.html
Wednesday, May 9, 2007 - 12:00 AM

BETTY UDESEN / THE SEATTLE TIMES

Charges may result from firings, say two former U.S. attorneys

By David Bowermaster
Seattle Times staff reporter

Two former U.S. attorneys said today they believe ongoing investigations into the dismissals last year of eight federal prosecutors could result in criminal charges against senior Justice Department officials.

John McKay, the former U.S. attorney for Western Washington, and David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, also said they believe White House political operative Karl Rove and his aides instigated the dismissals and ultimately decided who among the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys should be fired. But the White House on Wednesday flatly denied the firings were instigated by the White House.

McKay and Iglesias, who were among those fired, made their assertions during a meeting this morning with Seattle Times editors and reporters. The two appeared this afternoon along with Paul Charlton, the former U.S. attorney for Arizona, during a public-policy forum on the dismissals at Seattle University's School of Law.

"I think there will be a criminal case that will come out of this," McKay said during his meeting with Times journalists. "This is going to get worse, not better."

McKay cited ongoing investigations into the dismissals by the Senate and House Judiciary committees, and inquiries now under way by the Justice Department's inspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility.

McKay said he believes obstruction-of-justice charges will be filed if investigators conclude that the dismissal of any of the eight prosecutors was motivated by an attempt to influence ongoing public-corruption or voter-fraud investigations.

McKay said he believes the strongest evidence of obstruction is related to the dismissals of Iglesias and Carol Lam, the former U.S. Attorney in San Diego.

Last fall, Iglesias received calls from U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., inquiring whether public-corruption charges would be filed against prominent Democrats in the state prior to the November elections. Former New Mexico state Senate President Manny Aragon, a Democrat, and three others were eventually charged in April in what prosecutors say was a kickback scheme during construction of a new courthouse in Albuquerque.

Lam was investigating former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the former third-highest-ranking CIA official, when senior Justice Department officials targeted her for dismissal. Bribery charges were ultimately filed against both men.

Additionally, McKay and Iglesias said they believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty lied under oath when they testified before Congress that the eight prosecutors were fired for performance-related reasons and because of policy disputes with Justice Department headquarters.

Last week, a senior Justice Department official suggested to a House Judiciary Committee that McKay was fired because he had criticized the way superiors were handling the investigation into the slaying of former Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Wales, gunned down in his Seattle home on Oct. 11, 2001.

Democrats have suggested McKay was fired because Republican activists were upset that he did not convene a grand jury and file charges related to the 2004 Washington state governor's election, narrowly won by Democrat Christine Gregoire.

Responding to the charges by McKay and Iglesias, Department of Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse issued a statement this afternoon that read, in part: "After several hours of testimony by the Attorney General, over 6,000 pages of documents released to Congress and hours of interviews with other senior DOJ officials, it is clear that the Attorney General did not ask for the resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain."

The statement added: "The Attorney General himself has stated that this process was not as rigorous as it should have been and he has since taken steps to institute better management practices with respect to U.S. Attorneys. He has taken full responsibility for his actions and in recent weeks has taken steps to leave the Department in a stronger and better place from the lessons learned from this matter."

McKay and Iglesias also have both concluded that the White House was behind the firings.

They based their conclusions on thousands of pages of documents released by the Justice Department in recent weeks, as well as hours of public testimony by senior Justice Department officials and press reports of private depositions those officials gave to congressional investigators.

"It seems that given that no one takes credit at the Justice Department, that it can only be coming from one place, and that very strongly means the White House," McKay said.

The White House has so far refused to turn over e-mails related to the firings, and has said it may no longer have access to millions of e-mails sent through Republican National Committee servers. Consequently, Iglesias said, "it's hard for us to know who in the White House said what, on what date."

"The people that would have a voice in this would be Karl Rove, [Rove aide] Scott Jennings, [former White House counsel] Harriet Miers, probably, yes," he said. "But it's hard for me to say 'yes,' [without] looking at those e-mails and memos that are probably out there and missing that this is what they said on this date about John and me and my colleagues.

"But that would explain why the wagons are so tightly circled," Iglesias added.

Dan Bartlett, counselor to President Bush, insisted Wednesday that the White House played no role in the firings and merely "signed off " on a list of attorneys to be dismissed provided by the Department of Justice.

"The Attorney General made the right decision," Bartlett said. "We support the Attorney General in his decision. "

In testimony last month before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales said McKay was fired because there were "serious concerns about his judgment." The chief complaint, he said, was the manner in which McKay pushed an information-sharing project.

McKay said he began to have concerns about politics entering the Justice Department in early 2005, when Gonzales addressed all of the country's U.S. attorneys in Scottsdale, Ariz., shortly after he took over as attorney general.

"His first speech to us was a 'you work for the White House' speech," McKay recalled. " 'I work for the White House, you work for the White House.' "

McKay said he thought at the time, "He couldn't have meant that speech," given the traditional independence of U.S. Attorneys. "It turns out he did."

He looked around the meeting room and caught the eyes of his colleagues, who gave him looks of surprise at Gonzales' remarks. "We were stunned at what he was saying."

Iglesias said the silver lining of the prosecutor firings is that they have triggered a public and congressional recognition of the need to reassert the Justice Department's independence.

"There was an attempt to inject the virus of partisan politics into the prosecutorial process," Iglesias said. "That's been stopped because of Congressional oversight and because of media scrutiny."

David Bowermaster: 206-464-2724 or dbowermaster@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,980
Reaction score
10,026
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
The only way "criminal" charges can occur is if one ignores the reality of the law and Constitution.

Unless President Bush states he disapproved of the firings and didn't want them done every Prosecutor serves at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them can he was told to by his dog.

There is NO legal course of action as long as the Positions are political. Congress has no say in the matter of firings. The Senate has to approve who is hired but has no authority at all in how long they serve or for what reason they are fired.

The only thing Congress can do is keep questioning people and hope that like the Libby case they can manufacture a perjury charge.
 

Dirt McGirt

Bad Mother****er
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
504
Points
48
Additionally, McKay and Iglesias said they believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty lied under oath when they testified before Congress that the eight prosecutors were fired for performance-related reasons and because of policy disputes with Justice Department headquarters.
Maybe that depends on what Alberto Gonzales's definition of "performance-related reasons" is.
 

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
So what about all the U.S. attorneys who got fired by Clinton's DOJ when he came into office?
Maybe they deserved it?

Maybe it was cause the only people that would complain are Democrats, and since it was Democrats doing the firing, no one was available to complain?
 
OP
Care4all

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,716
Reaction score
15,127
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
The only way "criminal" charges can occur is if one ignores the reality of the law and Constitution.

Unless President Bush states he disapproved of the firings and didn't want them done every Prosecutor serves at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them can he was told to by his dog.

There is NO legal course of action as long as the Positions are political. Congress has no say in the matter of firings. The Senate has to approve who is hired but has no authority at all in how long they serve or for what reason they are fired.

The only thing Congress can do is keep questioning people and hope that like the Libby case they can manufacture a perjury charge.
that's not quite true, prosecutors are independent of the president when it involves their cases.

also, if they replaced any prosecutor because they did not want him/her to continue an investigation or case that he was working on, or if the justice dept tries to interphere for any political reason, or even if Congress tried to interphere with a case they are working on or influence them to work on one for political reasons, it is OBSTRUCTION of justice.

oh, and YOU THINK libby DID NOT commit purgery? you've got to be kidding....he lied under oath, clear as day! he lead the prosecutor on a wild goose chase and thrrew sand in his eyes and obstructed justice according to fitzy and the jury.... that is NOT a ''manufactuyred crime.... you impeached clinton for it! gees....

care
 
OP
Care4all

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,716
Reaction score
15,127
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
So what about all the U.S. attorneys who got fired by Clinton's DOJ when he came into office?
Do you really want to know? I would venture not....

All 93 prosecutors that served their term under Bush 1's pleasure were replaced by Clinton appointments when he came on as President.

Is that too hard to understand?

Then guess what?

All of the Clinton 93, were REPLACED IN FULL BY PRESIDENT BUSH when he came on board.

That's how it works....

The 8 that were recently fired, were fired mid term and for possible political reasons that obstructed justice.... this is what is in question. Our Justice system should never be jerked around for political gain....it looks bad and is bad for all of us....when we can't trust the justice system to be fair and just.

And if 5 million emails along with emails involving the decisions to make the changes have been lost or have been made on a system of the RnC....where congress is unable to access them which is against the law....

It smells worse than a fishery the way the administration and Gonzalez have handled this.... it makes a mockery out of our justice system and the position of attorney general in my humble opinion....

I wasn't brought up to be played a fool and SOMETHING is wrong here or so many people would not have resigned or pleaded the fifth etc....

What is done in the dark is done of darkness, what is done in the light is of the light...

truth and honesty is all I ask...and that is like pulling a tooth that just ain't ready with this group of people regarding this issue imo...

Care
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,980
Reaction score
10,026
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Actually Bush did NOT fire all Clinton's appointees AND those he fired he had replacements for. Clinton fired all 93 the day he took office. One was 30 days from filing a case that the dems didn't want filed, yet no one howled about politics and obstruction of Justice.

More importantly not one of the 8 fired Prosecutors can claim they were fired for cases they brought or were working on, in fact the claim is they WOULDN'T file cases. So much for obstruction of Justices charges.

As for Libby, I suggest you reread the facts and the law. It is ILLEGAL to try to and trap someone into perjury. What does that mean? it means you cant specifically run an investigation for the sole purpose of charging someone with perjury, it is illegal.

Yet the Prosecutor knew that Libby was NBOT the one that leaked Plumes name, Armatige had already confessed he did it ( for which no action was taken against him). Yet the prosecutor spent 2 years questioning Libby over and over for a NON crime ( Plume did not fit the charge, she was NOT a covert agent, the law was clear on that) that the prosecutor already knew Libby hadn't done to begin with.

Further Libby claimed he simply over a 2 year period forgot some things, when others questioned were caught the same way, their claims of " Ohh I forgot" were good enough, but not Libby.... I wonder why?
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Actually Bush did NOT fire all Clinton's appointees AND those he fired he had replacements for. Clinton fired all 93 the day he took office. One was 30 days from filing a case that the dems didn't want filed, yet no one howled about politics and obstruction of Justice.

More importantly not one of the 8 fired Prosecutors can claim they were fired for cases they brought or were working on, in fact the claim is they WOULDN'T file cases. So much for obstruction of Justices charges.

As for Libby, I suggest you reread the facts and the law. It is ILLEGAL to try to and trap someone into perjury. What does that mean? it means you cant specifically run an investigation for the sole purpose of charging someone with perjury, it is illegal.

Yet the Prosecutor knew that Libby was NBOT the one that leaked Plumes name, Armatige had already confessed he did it ( for which no action was taken against him). Yet the prosecutor spent 2 years questioning Libby over and over for a NON crime ( Plume did not fit the charge, she was NOT a covert agent, the law was clear on that) that the prosecutor already knew Libby hadn't done to begin with.

Further Libby claimed he simply over a 2 year period forgot some things, when others questioned were caught the same way, their claims of " Ohh I forgot" were good enough, but not Libby.... I wonder why?
It's called witch hunting, plain and simple.
 
OP
Care4all

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,716
Reaction score
15,127
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
Actually Bush did NOT fire all Clinton's appointees AND those he fired he had replacements for. Clinton fired all 93 the day he took office. One was 30 days from filing a case that the dems didn't want filed, yet no one howled about politics and obstruction of Justice

clinton made a mistake by not having replacements when he let them all go! this was criticisized greatly and deservedly at the time....

and honestly, if no one howled about it,

how do YOU know about it? ;)



More importantly not one of the 8 fired Prosecutors can claim they were fired for cases they brought or were working on, in fact the claim is they WOULDN'T file cases. So much for obstruction of Justices charges.

that's not true from what i have read... the Lam lady brought charges and prosecuted duke cunningham which was a huge bribery and corruption case that hurt republicans and 1 week before they decided to put her on the ''fire'' list she began working on search warrants and corruption charges against Dusty Foggo, another republican working as 2nd in charge of the cia i believe?

and in the other cases the justice dept and the senator from new mexico, i believe, tried to get one of the prosecutors to bring up a case of a democrat before the election....so to influence the result of an election.... that's not good! the senator is now all ''lawyered up'' so congress can not get anything out of dominici...

etc.etc.etc.

As for Libby, I suggest you reread the facts and the law. It is ILLEGAL to try to and trap someone into perjury. What does that mean? it means you cant specifically run an investigation for the sole purpose of charging someone with perjury, it is illegal.

and THEY DIDN'T try to trap him in to perjury.... it was a special prosecutor, a republican, appointed by ashcroft cuz he had to recuse himself... fitzgerald investigated the case that was given to him by the white house's attorney general, and THIS IS WHERE LIBBY FABRICATED a song and a dance that sent fitzy boy on the wild goose chase... and threw sand in his eyes, while investigating...

WHY DID LIBBY intentionally lie on 3 separate occaisions on this? why? why make up a story?


Yet the Prosecutor knew that Libby was NBOT the one that leaked Plumes name, Armatige had already confessed he did it ( for which no action was taken against him). Yet the prosecutor spent 2 years questioning Libby over and over for a NON crime ( Plume did not fit the charge, she was NOT a covert agent, the law was clear on that) that the prosecutor already knew Libby hadn't done to begin with.

again! your information is wrong. i read the case, i read fitzgerald's statements, i watched the hearing in congress... valerie plame was an undercover agent when she was outed by novak in the newspaper... this was said before oath and the new general running the show at the cia....can't remember his name...also SAID she was covert.

as far as armitage...fitzy says his leak was by accident, not intentional... (i don't agree) unlike what libby and rove's intentional leaks over and over and over again, at the direction of the vp.


Further Libby claimed he simply over a 2 year period forgot some things, when others questioned were caught the same way, their claims of " Ohh I forgot" were good enough, but not Libby.... I wonder why?

libby was questioned and went before his first grand jury 3 months after he leaked this to judith miller, this is where his lies began, not 2 years later...

that excuse of his was utterly ridiculous and another lie in and of itself....and a stupid defense to use....clearly! libby is a brilliant lawyer/man....he did not forget anything... he was loyal to the vp, followed the vp's instructions on how to ''handle wilson/ plame.... and got screwed imo, for lying about it.


care
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Actually Bush did NOT fire all Clinton's appointees AND those he fired he had replacements for. Clinton fired all 93 the day he took office. One was 30 days from filing a case that the dems didn't want filed, yet no one howled about politics and obstruction of Justice

clinton made a mistake by not having replacements when he let them all go! this was criticisized greatly and deservedly at the time....

and honestly, if no one howled about it,

how do YOU know about it? ;)


It's a simple matter of record. No big deal such as is currently being made was made about Clinton doing it.

More importantly not one of the 8 fired Prosecutors can claim they were fired for cases they brought or were working on, in fact the claim is they WOULDN'T file cases. So much for obstruction of Justices charges.

that's not true from what i have read... the Lam lady brought charges and prosecuted duke cunningham which was a huge bribery and corruption case that hurt republicans and 1 week before they decided to put her on the ''fire'' list she began working on search warrants and corruption charges against Dusty Foggo, another republican working as 2nd in charge of the cia i believe?

and in the other cases the justice dept and the senator from new mexico, i believe, tried to get one of the prosecutors to bring up a case of a democrat before the election....so to influence the result of an election.... that's not good! the senator is now all ''lawyered up'' so congress can not get anything out of dominici...

etc.etc.etc.

As for Libby, I suggest you reread the facts and the law. It is ILLEGAL to try to and trap someone into perjury. What does that mean? it means you cant specifically run an investigation for the sole purpose of charging someone with perjury, it is illegal.

and THEY DIDN'T try to trap him in to perjury.... it was a special prosecutor, a republican, appointed by ashcroft cuz he had to recuse himself... fitzgerald investigated the case that was given to him by the white house's attorney general, and THIS IS WHERE LIBBY FABRICATED a song and a dance that sent fitzy boy on the wild goose chase... and threw sand in his eyes, while investigating...

WHY DID LIBBY intentionally lie on 3 separate occaisions on this? why? why make up a story?


Yet the Prosecutor knew that Libby was NBOT the one that leaked Plumes name, Armatige had already confessed he did it ( for which no action was taken against him). Yet the prosecutor spent 2 years questioning Libby over and over for a NON crime ( Plume did not fit the charge, she was NOT a covert agent, the law was clear on that) that the prosecutor already knew Libby hadn't done to begin with.

again! your information is wrong. i read the case, i read fitzgerald's statements, i watched the hearing in congress... valerie plame was an undercover agent when she was outed by novak in the newspaper... this was said before oath and the new general running the show at the cia....can't remember his name...also SAID she was covert.

as far as armitage...fitzy says his leak was by accident, not intentional... (i don't agree) unlike what libby and rove's intentional leaks over and over and over again, at the direction of the vp.


Further Libby claimed he simply over a 2 year period forgot some things, when others questioned were caught the same way, their claims of " Ohh I forgot" were good enough, but not Libby.... I wonder why?

libby was questioned and went before his first grand jury 3 months after he leaked this to judith miller, this is where his lies began, not 2 years later...

that excuse of his was utterly ridiculous and another lie in and of itself....and a stupid defense to use....clearly! libby is a brilliant lawyer/man....he did not forget anything... he was loyal to the vp, followed the vp's instructions on how to ''handle wilson/ plame.... and got screwed imo, for lying about it.


care
You are SO wrong. How was Plame "undercover?" Cover is maintained for 2 years. It was 3+ years when her big-mouthed, self-agrandizing husband brought attention to himself; thus, his family.

And you think no one could figure out that Plame driving in and out of CIA Headquarters 5 days a week wasn't just a wrong turn every day for 3+ years?

The fact is, Libby was entrapped. The left-wingnut witch hunting machine is at full throttle, and SOMEONE had to hang. The actual facts that came out during the trial support retiredGySgt, and not the left-wing, revisionist version y'all have been parrotting for several years.
 
OP
Care4all

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,716
Reaction score
15,127
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
You are SO wrong. How was Plame "undercover?" Cover is maintained for 2 years. It was 3+ years when her big-mouthed, self-agrandizing husband brought attention to himself; thus, his family.

And you think no one could figure out that Plame driving in and out of CIA Headquarters 5 days a week wasn't just a wrong turn every day for 3+ years?

The fact is, Libby was entrapped. The left-wingnut witch hunting machine is at full throttle, and SOMEONE had to hang. The actual facts that came out during the trial support retiredGySgt, and not the left-wing, revisionist version y'all have been parrotting for several years.
if you REALLY want to know the answers to your questions, the information is out there from unbiased sources that could help you figure out the truth..

i would suggest with the hearing about this available at c-span.org

i am not going to get in to it with you. ;)

care
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
if you REALLY want to know the answers to your questions, the information is out there from unbiased sources that could help you figure out the truth..

i would suggest with the hearing about this available at c-span.org

i am not going to get in to it with you. ;)

care
I read up on the issue, and followed it througout. I have no questions. I can see with my own eyes the blatantly obvious, and this crap was so blatantly obvious the Man in the freakin' Moon could see it.

Apparently the only ones who can't see through the smokescreen to the facts are the politically blind partisan witch hunters who in the absence of anythign real, fabricated a bad guy.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,980
Reaction score
10,026
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
The law in question REQUIRES that an agent have done certain specific things. And there is a time limit. Plume met none of the requirements of the law. In fact she was "outed" by someone calling the CIA and a receptionist there TOLD them she was a CIA employee.

Covert agents don't pose for pictures with their husbands in Vanity Fair. They don't drive to work at Langley and park in the normal parking lot and stroll into work through the front door. They don't let their husbands brag to members of the press, friends and political contacts that they are working for the CIA.
 
OP
Care4all

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,716
Reaction score
15,127
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
I read up on the issue, and followed it througout. I have no questions. I can see with my own eyes the blatantly obvious, and this crap was so blatantly obvious the Man in the freakin' Moon could see it.

Apparently the only ones who can't see through the smokescreen to the facts are the politically blind partisan witch hunters who in the absence of anythign real, fabricated a bad guy.
Believe what you want...that does not mean it is the truth....and no YOU have not read enough or viewed enough to know the TRUTH if you believe what you do!

go to c-span, find the hearing on it, and watch the WHOLE thing.... THEN, you will know the whole truth about valerie plames status.

and once again, why do repubs always have to blame SOMEONE ELSE for their own wrong doings?

like you, trying to say that the prosecutor hired by ashcroft to investigate why valerie plame's covert status was outed...

made up everything... what a crock of crap! you imply he made up the accusation, he made up a fake crime all on his own just to DICK libby in the rear.... you fail to recognize the CIA brought plame's undercover outing to the attention of the justice dept... tenet brought it to ashcroft to investigate it...

honestly, i have heard what you said to the word from every CLONE on your side... yes, clone....how else are you all ''lock step'' on the same fabrications and same key comments...?

i don't mean to be mean, but i have little patience for people that don't use their own brains... i said this before to you, and i mean no harm, but you are just a ''repeat'' of what has been on my other sites... a ''repeat'' of the same lines and same false assumptions imo.... you are better than that.....at least maineman seems to think such, and i thoroughly trust him....

and he is soooooooo cutting you a break by treating you nice....cuz on the other sites i spend with him, he'd have chewed you up and spit you out with some of what i see as the blind rhetoric coming out of you....!

but he doesn't with you.... and THAT means something to me,,,

plame was a covert operative, she was undercover at the timing of the outing....that is now a fact....and has been a fact that your party still refuses to accept.

and 3 months after libby exposed valerie plame to judith miller and others and 1-2 weeks in to fitzgerald's investigation, he testified before a grand jury and purposely lied...that is perjury.... then he CONTINUED to lie to the grand jury...fitzgerald knew armitage's story who testified during the same period, but libby kept lying.... this kept fitzy from getting to the bottom of what REALLY happened but fitzy DID SAY it left a DARK CLOUD over the vp's head....

and 3 perjuries and one obstruction of justice later, we still don't know the vp's total involvement with the direction to smear wilson by calling nepotism...thus outing his wife, so to deflect from the fact that the 16 words about saddam without a doubt trying to acquire yellowcake from niger africa...

and let me spare you the comeback... you will now say ambassador wilson was not qualified to go on this fact finding trip, you will say he lied, you will say that his wife sent him on the trip and that they made this all up to dick president bush because they were against the war in iraq....

and i will say to you, FACT, she did not reccommend her husband for the job...it was not nepotism, and i will say wilson was MORE than qualified....with his relations and connections with both niger and iraq....and i will also say to you that wilson went to niger on this trip in february of 2002, the twin towers were still burning and it was OVER A YEAR before pres bush sent our troops in to iraq, so how could plame and wilson just have been disgruntled with the president because he went to war with iraq....wilson had gone a year earler?


anyway.... like i said, been there, done that... i am not going to waste my time and effort showing you the TRUTH for you to walk away repeating the same ''garbage'' tomorrow? maybe i am wrong...but you seem so familiar to all the other lock step, republicans that repeat what they are told....and probably honestly believe what they are told....

but like i said.... i don't have much patience for it, the truth is too important!

care
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,980
Reaction score
10,026
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Yes. lets discuss this issue and when someone points out your misconceptions and down right ignorance get all huffy, stomp your foot and storm away mad. Don't let the door hit you on the backside as you exit.
 
OP
Care4all

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,716
Reaction score
15,127
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
Yes. lets discuss this issue and when someone points out your misconceptions and down right ignorance get all huffy, stomp your foot and storm away mad. Don't let the door hit you on the backside as you exit.
i am not mad at anyone.... i just don't have the patience for it... i spent too long on this subject already, you (the general you) won't change your view NO MATTER what is discussed or shown or linked...

and i certainly am not going to change my mind on this issue....

it just is not worth the aggravation and disappointment... :(

care
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,980
Reaction score
10,026
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
We ( the general we) are the disappointed ones, logic, truth, evidence, none of it matters when dealing with blinders as thick as the ones people like you wear.
 
OP
Care4all

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,716
Reaction score
15,127
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
We ( the general we) are the disappointed ones, logic, truth, evidence, none of it matters when dealing with blinders as thick as the ones people like you wear.
think what you wish.

i am an honest person to the bone...

i am retired(young lol) and have ALL the time in the world to watch c-span, all the hearings and press conferences, and time to research everything thoroughly.... i know what i am talking about because i researched it, not because some partisan site told me what to say!

and i have heard all the rhetoric and lies.....

anyway...

gotta hit the sack...

good night,

care
 

Angelo

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
26,437
Reaction score
12,331
Points
1,100
Location
_Arkansas~_The Natural State_
Yes. lets discuss this issue and when someone points out your misconceptions and down right ignorance get all huffy, stomp your foot and storm away mad. Don't let the door hit you on the backside as you exit.
i am not mad at anyone.... i just don't have the patience for it... i spent too long on this subject already, you (the general you) won't change your view NO MATTER what is discussed or shown or linked...

and i certainly am not going to change my mind on this issue....

it just is not worth the aggravation and disappointment... :(

care
Times have changed haven't they ?
I would have agreed with you 13 years ago.:)
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top