Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The one that makes it illegal to out CIA operatives.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but its somewhere in this thread. I posted its text last week. Someone quite plainly violated it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Bush might time his Supreme Court nomination to overshadow the story (as he seems to be doing already, since he promised a nomination within days last week, but now - following the Post story about the Rove link - he is saying he won't offer one until next week), and he will try to link the two matters, so that he can make the defense that any investigation stemming from the Rove debacle is part of a Democratic plot to fuck with his nomination or revenge against a nomination of a conservative.

He'll also be able to use the nomination as an excuse to not discuss the Rove debacle. He'll say something like "I have much to accomplish, and am too busy to be bogged down in the poilitics of personal destruction."

But if its Rove, this story ain't going to disappear, no matter how hard Roger Ailes tries to deep six it. The Wash Post, Newsweek and Vanity Fair, not the Times, are leading the charge on this one. The Post desperately wants to get Watergate II, particularly since it got scooped on Deep Throat. If bush is smart, he'll try to cozy up to Woodward and offer him exclusives early... a make a friend of the imminent enemy defense. Woodward has questionable ethics and has already written a glowing kiss ass book about Bush's reaction to 9/11. Maybe they can buy off Woodward and the Post... maybe not. But either way, they have to deal with Newsweek, which wants Bush's head at the moment, due to the Koran story whipping his admin gave it...

The problem, son, is that all your media amounts to 1 pebble of credibility. Vanity fair? A year ago it was publishing stories about how Bush stole Fla in 2000. do you think anyone cares at all about its "scoops?"

CBS news and Newsweek lies have ruined any abiltity by the media to do anything to Bush. He could start lynching guys on the white house lawn he finds disloyal. Press can't touch him.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The one that makes it illegal to out CIA operatives.

It is not as simple as that, when you look at the statute. There is temporal element (I think the outee must have been working undercover during the prior 5 years) and there is an knowledge element. Based on what we knew when this was originally argued here, it is an uphill battle for those going after the leaker from a legal standpoint. That's not to say they won't try and it's not to say that they won't bog down DC for the next 3 years, but ultimately, I'd be surprised if there's a conviction.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The one that makes it illegal to out CIA operatives.

You work for atemp lawyer services firm, Quit trying to make it look like you're hooked into the spy game.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not a Whhabi, but the argument was that there was no violation of the statute. Please let me know if, based on new facts, you believe a statute has been violated.

Technical defense = admission in the court of public opinion. All anyone will hear is "Outed... spy... put her... in danger." That he didn't do so "knowingly," which will be his defense, is a trivial distinction to the public.

Ask anyone whether Michael Jackson's a child molester. "Of course he is." The GOP is already fracturing. People like McCain and Hagel might think its easier to get nominated by distancing themselves from, and attacking, Bush. If a few start tacking toward the center and trying to position themselves as moderate GOP candidates in 2008, Bush could be looking at a nasty mutiny. He can't fight back if the public views his most trusted advisor as a treacherous liar. This could turn Bush into a target.

At a minimum, Bush's teflon will be severely compromised.

But fuck it... he was a lame duck from any angle. The Dems have been killing his agenda for months now with their hands tied behind their backs. His legacy will be a couple supreme court justices and being ahead of the curve on a SS policy which will be implemented years after he's dead.

Oh, and he'll have Iraq. Whatever that becomes.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Why? I am not saying that they did it.

You are constantly saying that they did it.

I'm saying its not impossible. To date, in my thirty some odd years on earth, to my knowledge there are exactly 0 incidents of circumstantial evidence or inuendo relating me to murder. The Clintons have scores of incidents.

And you believe that the innuendo is true. That's all I'm saying. You believe it's true, whatever your reasons. It's not a shtick, as Hank says in trying to defend you. It's what you truly believe.

If you don't, you would say so. But you can't.

Looking at them critically, they have a lot of scandal attached to them. Some with cause, some probably without. Isn't odd that many of the other people with first hand knowledge of the facts are dead, not from old age or in many cases from chronic disease? Again, I am not saying that proves anything; however compare with someone else with like inuendo, let's say, John Gotti.

Isn't it odd that, despite the most expensive criminal investigation in the history of mankind, no one has come up with enough evidence to support a charge against them -- even though the jurisdictions in which they supposedly committed their crimes, according to the right-wing psycho-babble, are largely controlled by Republicans.

Compare that to John Gotti -- enough evidence to support charges and convictions.

Neighbour hits and kills his son, next day neighbour vanishes. Do you think he fled to the Bahamas to hide out? Same difference. What I don't get is why otherwise intelligent people are so quick to jump on these hucksters bandwagon.

The nature of the people making the charges would be reason enough. You, for example, have already compared Bill Clinton to Stalin and Mussolini -- and that's just today. Given that, I wouldn't believe you if you told me the sun rises in the East. One believes the pathologic at one's own risk.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Where they coordinated out of Iraq?

Your point -- I thought -- was that you haven't seen the terror network for which Iraq is now a training ground (and recruitment poster) funcitioning outside Iraq in two years.

Madrid seems to contradict you. The people who are sending foreign fighters to Iraq coordinated the Madrid attack -- don't you think?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not a Whhabi, but the argument was that there was no violation of the statute. Please let me know if, based on new facts, you believe a statute has been violated.

I believed that based on the old facts. Go back and read the thread if you like.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The problem, son, is that all your media amounts to 1 pebble of credibility. Vanity fair? A year ago it was publishing stories about how Bush stole Fla in 2000. do you think anyone cares at all about its "scoops?"

CBS news and Newsweek lies have ruined any abiltity by the media to do anything to Bush. He could start lynching guys on the white house lawn he finds disloyal. Press can't touch him.

Thanks for reminding me -- in addition to yelling "9/11!!!", the Wahhabi Repubs will blame the media.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The problem, son, is that all your media amounts to 1 pebble of credibility. Vanity fair? A year ago it was publishing stories about how Bush stole Fla in 2000. do you think anyone cares at all about its "scoops?"

CBS news and Newsweek lies have ruined any abiltity by the media to do anything to Bush. He could start lynching guys on the white house lawn he finds disloyal. Press can't touch him.

Hank, the CBS News "scandal" was media navel gazing at its worst. No one paid attention to that story except the media, which likes to write stories about itself.

Karl Rove being shitcanned is a big goddamned story. As big as they get. And whether Rove violated the statute or not, if he is the source, he will be fired. Bush has no choice. He's got to kill Rove and quickly, to put the thing behind him.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You work for atemp lawyer services firm, Quit trying to make it look like you're hooked into the spy game.

But I enjoy using the hip, hypertechnical, supersecret spy lingo-type stuff. The chicks dig it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Your point -- I thought -- was that you haven't seen the terror network for which Iraq is now a training ground (and recruitment poster) funcitioning outside Iraq in two years.

Madrid seems to contradict you. The people who are sending foreign fighters to Iraq coordinated the Madrid attack -- don't you think?

My point was the Iraqi "breeding ground" has not produced any terrorist attacks outside of Iraq that I know of. Madrid was not caused by terrotists "trainded in Iraq". I have yet to hear of an attack that was coordinated by terroists from Iraq or trained in Iraq. So this breeding ground of terrorist claim rings a little hollow.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Thanks for reminding me -- in addition to yelling "9/11!!!", the Wahhabi Repubs will blame the media.

Isn't calling people you think crazy "wahabi" racist?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Isn't calling people you think crazy "wahabi" racist?

No but it is religious bigotry

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
My point was the Iraqi "breeding ground" has not produced any terrorist attacks outside of Iraq that I know of. Madrid was not caused by terrotists "trainded in Iraq". I have yet to hear of an attack that was coordinated by terroists from Iraq or trained in Iraq. So this breeding ground of terrorist claim rings a little hollow.

2. plus most of the attacks in Iraq are suicide bombers. Sorry, but having the opportunity to do a suicide bombing does not prep you for more.