This thread is even longer than the Sanfrancisco gay marriage thread from a coupke years ago.

May be the longest on the NFR board.

KK

Nothing will happen because Bush's boys are accomplished liars. Good liars don't get caught lying because they use weasel words like "sought" and "best available intelligence" so they don't get pinned down.

Clinton was a pretty good liar, with his "there is " no relationship, so he could say there was one if caught, and "I did not have sexual relations" meaning that a hummer isn't sexual relations...........but he wasn't as good a liar as, say, Rove is. For one, Rove has no blue dress to worry about, just someone else's word. And a good liar can easily get around someone else's word.

What? You're surprised that our upper levels of Government are comprised of liars and weasels? You shouldn't be. That's who we vote for every time.

Yep.

With regards to Safire; and? He cites a quote by the Brits who relied on forged documents in the first place. What did you expect them to say? What part of CYA don't you understand?

And since he's parsing words:
That's quite a bit different than "they actually were" or "knew they were."

bush was told by Tenet NOT to use the Niger uranium issue in his speech because it was not valid. bush knew at that point the information was questionable at best, yet he conveyed it to the American public as if it was fact. That's still a lie where I come from.

Maybe we just go to different churches or something...

RB:
"With that in mind I ask you, what did Bush 43 knowingly lie about in his 'quest for war'? "


Do lies after the war started count ?

President Bush
Interview with TVP, Poland
May 29, 2003

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories… They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."


Well, do they? That's lookin', I say, I say thats's lookin' like like a a , well why don't you tell me what that looks like to you.


KK

well since theKing pays more taxes than all of us, his opinion is more valid, so Rove must be a swell guy who never leaked any info maliciously, and wilson must be a liberal doodie head who only wants to "bring Bush down". case closed.....until we pay as much in taxes as theKing we have no right to dispute his opinions or even voice our own.

I don't think TK's taxes are supporting all those things Chives. :p

No really, his taxes are being directly given to GoHarley and my hubby for all their years of military service! That's why he feels no responsibility to fight for his country.

Go here.

Hahahahahahahahaha!



Hahahahahahahahahah!

I will be using that!

You can tell when the libs have lost a point. They whip out the "enlist" line like that has any merit then they go on a back slapping parade like the last 3 posts. It's like watching a 3 stooges movie

The point was Rove. I can understand why you'd want to change the subject and so you did. "walk the talk" you say or your opinions is worthless, then you wonder why we ask you to adhere to the same standards. "I am walking the talk" you then say "because i pay taxes".



Your argument that one has to own 5 acres of land to be concerned about environmental abuse was absurd. When we ask you to apply these absurd standards of yours to your own actions, you cry like a baby "I dont have to enlist cause there is no draft"..."these mean liberals keep telling me to enlist, thats such a stupid argument!"...yes numbutz it is a stupid argument...and it is YOUR argument.

Then to top it all off, you seem to loose sight of the fact that YOU brought up the whole "enlist" thing your self by repeating your moronic mantra "walk the talk" or your opinions are worthless.

I dont think there is a person on this site, or even on this planet, liberal conservative or otherwise who would attempt to defend your position. It is undefendable. It defeats itself with its own reverse logic.

So what say you...any non-liberals out there wanna come to the aid of your buddy theKing? Is it a valid argument that one's concerns about environmental abuse are not valid unless that person owns 5 acres of land?
But on the other hand, theKings opinions on Iraq (or whatever else) are valid because he pays alot of taxes?

Just admit your argument sucked Kingy, or be prepared to hold yourself to the same ridiculous standards you wish to apply to everyone elses opinion.

Hypocracy and ignorance are not partisan, not liberal or conservative...just sad. Sad and very dangerous....our boys are dying now because of it. Because of you and people like you.

Thank you. We're glad you appreciate our humor and compare us to some of the greatest comics of all time. Too bad we can't say the same about you. You're neither funny, nor clever, except in your own feeble mind.

TK,

As Chives said, "walk the talk" was your argument, and you made it so with your 5 acres of riparian habitat example. Sorry, paying taxes isn't walking the talk. We all pay taxes whether we like it or not or whether we support the war or not. Ergo, using your own self-imposed standard of walking the talk, when it comes to the war in Iraq, you ain't walking your talk. So you're just another chickenhawk cheerleader.

Salmo

SG,

If that was the case then all you yellow bellied libs would have to enlist to have an opinion about the war as well. You would also have to be a firefighter, Policeman,coast guard and on and on and on. All you have to do is be a citizen to have a vote IE an opinion in this country by the rule of law. That is not true with choices like restoring salmon runs. Specifically where ones lifestyle is the main culprit in the decline.

It's only been a few days since the Supreme Court nominee was hurriedly announced in an attempt to get Karl Rove off the front pages. Since then, all hell has broken loose.

Bloomberg is reporting that Rove and Libby both gave testimony to the grand jury that flatly conflicts with the testimony given by those they said they talked to.

We now know that the Top Secret memo most consistent with the talking points that Rove and Libby told reporters was seen in the hands of Press Secretary Ari Fleischer in the days before the leak occurred. And that Fleischer told the grand jury he never saw it.

Steve Clemons has verified that John Bolton was one of Judith Miller's regular sources on WMD issues, and that MSNBC stands by its story that Bolton gave testimony to the grand jury about the State Department memo in question. Bolton, you may recall, has previously been identified to have been involved in the Niger uranium claims that Wilson's trip helped disprove -- just to add even more gunpowder to this mix.

This is, to use the most calm and soothing phrase possible in such circumstances, extremely f---ing bad for the administration. It shows the broad outlines not just of multiple perjury charges, but indeed of linked conspiracy charges against a number of administration officials.

We know that there are members of the administration familiar with the attack against Plame/Wilson who have been talking to prosecutors. At least, we can assume they've been telling prosecutors at least as much as they've been telling the press, or we'd have a whole passel of reporters likely joining Judith Miller in her Fortress of Suddenly Discovered Integrity. The fact that other administration officials have been giving their side of the story perhaps poses the most serious risk of all for Rove and others -- because it wouldn't be very difficult, for people in the right places, to shatter what little plausible deniability Rove, Libby, Fleischer, and others have been clinging to.

That branch may already be broken, in fact. I don't think it's possible to exaggerate the amount of legal danger here for Rove in particular, and Fleischer and Libby as well. The special counsel is likely trying to solidify how, exactly, Rove learned the information in the memo, since it's looking increasingly implausible that reporters told him, and looking more probable that Rove and Novak "agreed" on a storyline after the fact (reports are now saying that Rove's and Novak's stories don't quite match, too, further raising the stakes.) Note, however, that it may not matter whether the grand jury can fully identify how he came by the information. Rove has now been identified as confirming the classified info to both Novak and Cooper; that in and of itself represents a likely crime under the Espionage Act.

The special prosecutor in the CIA leak probe has interviewed a wider range of administration officials than was previously known, part of an effort to determine whether anyone broke laws during a White House effort two years ago to discredit allegations that President Bush used faulty intelligence to justify the Iraq war, according to several officials familiar with the case.

Prosecutors have questioned former CIA director George J. Tenet and deputy director John E. McLaughlin, former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, State Department officials, and even a stranger who approached columnist Robert D. Novak on the street. In doing so, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked not only about how CIA operative Valerie Plame's name was leaked but also how the administration went about shifting responsibility from the White House to the CIA for having included 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union address about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Africa.


R. Novak may have forgotten the "'don't f--- with the company' rule":


In the book, [Wilson] said he tried to reach Novak on July 8, and they finally connected on July 10. In that conversation, Wilson said he did not confirm his wife worked for the CIA but that Novak told him he had obtained the information from a "CIA source."

. . . Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified information.


Like I said, the moral of the story may be "don't **** with the Company."

I sure wish I knew why Novak isn't being prosecuted. I haven't read anything, anywhere, stating that Fitzgerald plans to prosecute him in the future and he damn well should be.

I have to say, Novak knew exactly who Plame was and what her role was with the CIA and he "outed" her anyway. His above statement is a BS smoke screen for his wrong doing. I read the text of the law and it seems to me that Novak, knowingly revealed her identity and should be held accountable for his actions, every bit as much as anyone in the administration.

Either the wheels of justice really do turn slowly or this is just a lefty media attempt to smear a guy ? I vote for the smear as Rove will never be charged except by the conspiracy therorists.

I don't know therte TK. It's lookin' more and more like Congress wants to rush a quick hearing in, and will grant immunity to those who testify, thus clearing the way for pardons. just like that great American ****bag Oliver North.
Remember, the Special Council stated that testimony before Congress, under an immunity grant, made his job much tougher.
Too bad it wasn't about sex, cuz sex sells.

KK

Somebody here is guilty, just who it is, remains to be seen.

Why do you think that Shrub quickly went on a five week "working" vacation back to Texas. He is trying to distance himself from Rove and Scooter, that way he won't be hounded by the press for the next five weeks and won't have to answer and embarrassing questions which he can't or won't answer.
The problem with a liar isn’t that he can’t be believed, it is that he can’t believe others, that is why so many right winger neo cons don’t believe the truth when presented with the facts. They have lied so often that they don’t even know what the truth really is and continue to spew their party line of B.S.
Fact #1 Bush is a liar, lied about WMD, lied about the reason for going to war in Iraq and now won’t face up to the truth.
Fact #2 Rove and Channey’s aid “Scooter” out’ed Plume to punish Wilson.
Fact#3 G.W. Shrub is the worst president in my lifetime and should be impeached

five week vacation? The president of the united states takes a five week vacation?

Bush is a criminal..plain and simple.