Libby Found Guilty On 4 of 5 Counts

Howard Dean said "sick 'em" and they did.

There's no use talking to someone who refuses to believe a word you say. If what you're saying doesn't reinforce one of their many delusions, they'll just ignore it.

 

I listen to Oxy-Rush during my lunch break just to see what he is howling about, and you are correct, it is surprising how his talking points show up here on a regular basis.

What is hilarious to me is the have people who get their news from people like Limbaugh accusing me of listening to biased news sources.

 

"But other former C.I.A. officers say that by 2003 Ms. Wilson's cover was already thin. Any serious inquiry would have revealed that Brewster Jennings was little more than a mailbox...."She looks, walks and quacks like an overt agency employee," said Fred Rustmann, a C.I.A. officer from 1966 to 1990, who supervised Ms. Wilson early in her career"

- NYT July 5, 2005

***

Debatable. But it remains that the NSA's terrorist surveillance program was getting real results, and that revealing it did real damage to an ongoing operation.

 

All Bush had to do was to abide by the law and go to the FISA courts and they could get the wiretaps they wanted. They were even allowed to wiretap first, and then get approval later. President Bush just doesn't want to abide by the law!

 

There is nothing like gross overstatement to win an argument eh.

ECHELON program began long before Bush took office, (a program which the Times had previously defended during the Clinton administration) and they chose to paste it across it's front pages, regardless of the damage done to ongoing operations. They attempted to 'take it down'.

If any real damage was done by the 'outing' of Plame, then Fitzgerald surely would have gone after the source, that being Richard Armitage.

 

So, you are claiming that Brewster Jennings was nothing more than a mailbox? That doesn't really address the issue as to whether or not the company was a cover for more CIA agents/operatives. From everything I have read and heard, it was indeed a front company used for cover. The fact that it was little more than a mailbox certainly seems to indicate that, doesn't it? Let's not forget: the CIA are the GOOD GUYS in this war on terrorism, regardless of their political ideology.

Getting real results? Are you kidding? What results has it given us?
As far as debatable, it is not. The law clearly states that a FISA warrant must be obtained. What's more, the warrant doesn't have to be obtained until AFTER the surveillance has begun. That cannot be debated.

As for results, I guess you subscribe to moral relativism: that the ends justify the means. I really cannot help you with that and I am sorry.

Regards anyway, hope your Sunday is as beautiful as mine,
BiR

 

This is almost verbatim to what Rush Limbaugh said earlier this week. But I guess that only Terry and I would know this.....

 

Well, I sure wouldn't. I quit listening to that guy when I stopped carpooling with a Rush-fanatic friend to college about 5 years ago. I never did like his show, and I don't know how you can stomach it.

I count Rush as being 1 step up from Ann Coulter, mmm, on second thought, maybe 2 steps. Of course, on a scale to 100, with Coulter being at -10, Rush is not very high up.

 

* cough * Bill Maher * cough *

Jumping to a subject you feel much more comfortable with - bashing Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, as if either have anything at all to with this.

So, let me get this straight. Wilson LIED, Armitage leaked, and Berger stole classified documents, and Libby was convicted???

Is this what they mean when they used the term "social justice"?

 

Liberals love to hate Rush. Since they hang on his every word, they believe conservatives do too.

Laughable. :laugh:

I might listen to Rush if I could, but I seem to be at work most afternoons when he is on local radio.

Maybe Rush is getting some of his ideas from the good level headed conservatives at BB.:applause:

 

That must be why Rush's ratings are so high, all the lefties are listening in! I haven't heard his show in years. And regarding the Libby trial, Limbaugh can see the obvious just like the rest of us.

 

Well, C.I.A. agent Fred Rustmann, who had supervised Ms. Wilson in her early carreer said that it was.

US Attorney General Gonzales said: "It has been very effective. We've had numerous statements by leaders of the intelligence community about the effectiveness of this program in protecting America."

Debatable because, following the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the AUMF, which authorized the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Not a slam dunk maybe, but definately debatable.

Thank you for your concern.

 

Oh, I am sure that none of you listen to Rush Limbaugh. He has the highest-rated show on the radio, and I am virtually alone in listening to him every day. Moreover, the fact that most of what he discusses on his show is reproduced here on the board (many times verbatim) is merely coincidental. Every time I make mention of Rush, there are usually people who steadfastly maintain that they don’t listen to him.

BTW, for all of you who do listen to him, have you noticed that anyone who is calling in to take issue with him, claiming that he is not doing enough to fight back against the Democrats almost seem to be reading scripts?

Also, here is a new game to play when listening to Rush: count how many times he uses the phrase “drive-by media” in one hour. Today there were several times where he repeated the phrase multiple times in one sentence.

But since Terry is the only one in this discussion who listens to Rush, I guess we will be the only ones who notice this.

As for NiteShift’s point that “all the lefties are listening in,” it is worth noting that Rush makes this very point on his show. I guess it’s merely coincidental that this point was made on the board as well, huh?

Regards,
BiR

 

Really?
Well here is what was in the Washington Post back on October 4, 2003:

So, that would mean that anyone who used this as a cover at any time in the past was now compromised. Additionally, that means that anyone who was working in conjunction with this cover anywhere in the world could possibly be at risk, especially if they are in countries that are hostile to the United States.

Again, to reiterate a point I have already made, the CIA are the good guys. That is why I have absolutely no respect for the despicable Mr. Novak, nor any news agency who would employ such a bad guy.....

Any examples? Who has been arrested as a result of this violation of the FISA statutes?

Nope, not even close. This resolution did not give the POTUS the ability to break the law. Let's get one thing straight: nobody is above the law. The FISA statutes have outlined the proper procedure for obtaining warrants, and it is worth noting (again) that these warrants may be obtained AFTER the surveillance has begun. Nowhere in the AUMF does it allow the POTUS to break the law.

The concern I have appears to be rightly justified. We all know that it's never right to do wrong to do right.

To quote Mr. Zimmerman:
"...How many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?"

Regards, hope your weather is as beautiful as it is here,
BiR

 

Scooter Libby will do exactly what Rush tells him to do. If Rush wants him pardoned, Libby will be pardoned.

And Plames was NOT covert at the time of the "leak", Rush confirmed THAT, too. Duh.

Drive-by media.
Drive-by media.
Drive-by media.

It's a conspiracy, I tell you. Rush Limbaugh is watching you. Thinking of you. Waiting for you. He's everywhere. You can run but you can't hide.

 

BiR, you know I like you, but if yer gonna yell "Limbaugh" everytime one of us brings up a good point, I'm gonna stop talking to you. Maybe.


Hope all is well, I'm fighting one of the more serious flus I've ever had.

 

Yes she was! No matter how often you repeat this lie, it is still a lie!

 

I see, you are using the well-known and effective 'Liar Liar Pants on Fire' argument. Very good BiR. This is a new low for you.

 

It was a very open secret, as attested by several people at the time. And again, if you think that an operation was compromised, you should be writing your congressman and encouraging prosecution of Armitage, since he was the blabbermouth.

And I really don't care if you think Novak is despicable. Knock yourself out with the name-calling. It's nothing to me.

Well let's see, it being a classified operation, giving examples of successes would be despicable wouldn't it?

Nevertheless, after the House Intelligence Committee was briefed on the program in Jan, 2006, Democrat Bud Cramer said, "It's a different program than I was beginning to let myself belive", and other members of the committee said that it covered the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act, Justice Department papers outlining legal justifications for the operations, limited details on success stories,and some highly sensitive details. None would provide specifics.

Not even close? This is nothing but your opinion. Justice Department lawyers disagreed. But thank you for the lesson in ethics.

 

I simply pointed out that many of his talking points show up here on the board, many times verbatim. The most bizarre aspect of that fact is the almost belligerent responses to noting this. The simple fact is that these talking points continually keep showing up, in some cases from the same people who deny listening to him.

As for the "good point," please direct me to any good point where something that was seemingly reproduced by Limbaugh was a "good point." I have not seen one yet, but would consider anything you write worth reading.

You are in my prayers. This see-saw weather in the Commonwealth is getting very bizarre. Wednesday night I went down to Williamsburg after work to get in a quick ride on the Colonial Parkway (on my roadie) and it was warm enough to wear cycling shorts and a short-sleeved jersey. At about 7.5 miles I could see the rainclouds coming in from the West, and decided to turn back (was trying to get to Yorktown). By the time I got back to my car and packed up my roadie, it started pouring. By the time I got back to downtown Richmond, it was rather chilly. Now I have a head cold. That is why my typing seems so nasally (not sure if that is a real word, but you get the picture).

Lots and lots of brotherly Christian love to you and yours,
BiR
<sneeze>