Thoughts from a room with no windows
Further experiments in living without sunlight.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Previous Posts
- MORE ON BRIAN DOYLE, HOMELAND SECURITY SPOKESMAN/P...
- APRILUPDATE: MY LANGUAGE REGARDING THE POSSIBLE LI...
- WHY DO I NOT FEEL SAFER?Homeland Security - keep u...
- PUT A BOW ON ITBrain Shivers, the record, is done....
- HOUSE IN DA BROOKLYNWhere's Jackson?I'll tell you ...
- MAXXCOOLWaves has created some of the best signal ...
- WISHING YOU AN ENJOYABLE CHING MINGTomorrow is the...
- THOSE DARNED dB'sCan anyone explain the dB (decibe...
- DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME (NOTE THE LACK OF "S" AT THE ...
- LIVE STRIKES!In my ongoing effort to use this blog...
6 Comments:
Have to check out more on the news this evening. The article keeps refering to "Documents disclosed", but doesn't mention what those documents are. Are they Scooters tetimony, or a paper trail with White House ink on it.
Gotta go with Tony on this. What specifically was disclosed? It seems clear that there is no claim that the President told Libby to discuss the employment of Valerie Plame (leaving aside the question of whether she was even undercover).
It's not even clear, from this article at least, whether or not the President instructed Libby to divulge classified information. The article refers to "sensitive intelligence information," but it appears to be talking about an out-of-date (by that point) National Intelligence Estimate.
Wow, you guys are willing to cut a lot of slack... for some.
If a Democratic congressman says "we can't win the war in Iraq," he's threatening national security.
If the President of the United States authorizes the leak of information about WMD's in Iraq (I don't know if it was classified or not, but if it was leaked it wasn't supposed to get out) it's OK.
Considering the administrations's zeal for going after leakers (is that a word?) it's hypocrisy at best.
It's OK though. The American people are starting to see the Bush White House for what it is. And it ain't pretty.
Chrispy -
I don't see your example analogous.
In your case, the facts are there for all to see. The Democrat in your example says what he says, so I can formulate an opinion. All the facts are in evidence.
It's not at all clear what these documents say, so I have no opinion. I didn't say Bush was right or wrong. I just said I don't even know what evidence is being presented and the article is unclear.
Said it before I could...
Scooter Libby is in hot water here. I anticipated him passing the buck myself. The thing I waiting on is the tangible proof.
While Monicagate to me was nothing more than a tabloid circus show, I happened to have been one of those who took Clinton on his word that, "...he didn't have sex with that women". That it was nothing more than a partisan attack to discredit him. Hell, he stuck to his story under oath, how could he be lying right? When physical evidence was presented and that changed.
Maybe Scooter will be unable to produce any real proof that W or Cheney authorized his actions. That doesn't mean it didn't happen the way he's telling us it did. Or maybe he'll cough something up.
Until then, I'll just wait for the facts to emerge...
Tony, I can't believe you thought for a minute Bill was telling the truth. I knew he was guilty of getting a hummer, and I winced when he lied about it because I knew it would come (cum) back to haunt him. There's some sick blue dress saving folks in this world.
The only difference here, and it's a huge difference, is that instead of a BJ we're talking about National Security, and GW won't have to sit through any impeacment because Ken Starr doesn't hate him.
Face it guys, you vote for crooks, I vote for playboys.
Post a Comment
<< Home