Bush Authorized The CIA Leak, Libby Says

[lazur]

It is a he said/she said scenario, you know damn well it can't be proven. However, it can be damaging. Look at the Kerry Swift Boat campaign.

Curious however, you were willing to take the words of partisan, Texas veterans who claimed Kerry was a liar about his military record (Even though evidence contradicted that) and yet you aren't willing to accept what Libby says.

Actually, medical evidence proved that he was only scratched and still accepted the purple heart. You don't remember that? And if I remember correctly, not all of them were from Texas, and not all of them were republican.

 

[sinewave]

It is a he said/she said scenario, you know damn well it can't be proven. However, it can be damaging. Look at the Kerry Swift Boat campaign.

Curious however, you were willing to take the words of partisan, Texas veterans who claimed Kerry was a liar about his military record (Even though evidence contradicted that) and yet you aren't willing to accept what Libby says.

you're forgetting that the republicans have a trump card available to them that the dems didn't have in the face of the swift boat incident; they can always blame it on the "liberal media".

 

[Matt]

we'll have to wait and see how fitzgerald proceeds from here. it could get very ugly if he decides to bring in cheney and/or bush to testify under oath. ooohhhh, i'm getting a chubby just thinking about that!

I doubt they would do it, I'm guessing they will claim some kind of executive privledge forbids them from going under oath...and even if they are, it's just a few words...oath isn't a magic spell that keeps you from lying.

I wonder though, if Bush did get caught lying under oath, would Republicans call for his impeachment? Would Lazur who brings up Clinton lying under oath in every post, call for Bush's impeachment?

 

[lazur]

you're forgetting that the republicans have a trump card that they can pull that the dems didn't in the face of the swift boat incident; they can always blame it on the "liberal media".

Kerry was an idiot. Next to Ted Kennedy, he was the absolute worst candidate the dems could have produced. There are a ton of other, more worthy dems that should have run against Bush, and who would have easily won.

It was a worse against worst campaign, and Kerry was, by far, the 'worst'. Quit acting like Kerry was a frickin angel. He brought about his own political demise. He didn't need any help from the republicans.

 

[Matt]

Actually, medical evidence proved that he was only scratched and still accepted the purple heart. You don't remember that? And if I remember correctly, not all of them were from Texas, and not all of them were republican.

The doctor who claimed he examined Kerry and he was only scratched did not examine him and was not even in Vietnam at the time. That was proven to be fact. Nice try. Curious you would believe that though.

 

[lazur]

The doctor who claimed he examined Kerry and he was only scratched did not examine him and was not even in Vietnam at the time. That was proven to be fact. Nice try. Curious you would believe that though.

The man did not receive life-threatening wounds, period. Yet he still managed, what, like three purple hearts? Give me a break. See my last statement about Kerry.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

The man did not receive life-threatening wounds, period. Yet he still managed, what, like three purple hearts? Give me a break. See my last statement about Kerry.

Where was Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld during Vietnam? Thank you.

It seems no matter what you'll defend them even if they shot up a child care center full of children.

At least Kerry WENT to Vietnam and defended his country, where as your boy Bush decided to hide out and let his daddy get him out of it.

 

[Matt]

The man did not receive life-threatening wounds, period. Yet he still managed, what, like three purple hearts? Give me a break. See my last statement about Kerry.

HE recieved three purple hearts because he was wounded three times. The purple heart does not require life-threatening wounds. Simply a soldier who is wounded in the line of duty. There is no evidence for the Swift vet attacks, and yet you are defending it. Thank you for proving my point, while entirely invalidating your argument. You claiming anyone is biased and making assumptions without evidence is not a valid argument.

 

[lazur]

HE recieved three purple hearts because he was wounded three times. The purple heart does not require life-threatening wounds. Simply a soldier who is wounded in the line of duty. There is no evidence for the Swift vet attacks, and yet you are defending it. Thank you for proving my point, while entirely invalidating your argument. You claiming anyone is biased and making assumptions without evidence is not a valid argument.

LOL what 'evidence' do you want? They were speaking about the guy's character for Christ sakes. I don't think one's character can be documented as evidence.

 

[lazur]

Where was Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld during Vietnam? Thank you.

It seems no matter what you'll defend them even if they shot up a child care center full of children.

At least Kerry WENT to Vietnam and defended his country, where as your boy Bush decided to hide out and let his daddy get him out of it.

Hmm, where was Clinton during Vietnam? Hmmm?? At least Bush was a pilot in the guard.

 

[Matt]

LOL what 'evidence' do you want? They were speaking about the guy's character for Christ sakes. I don't think one's character can be documented as evidence.

No, they were calling his service record into question.

 

[sinewave]

Kerry was an idiot. Next to Ted Kennedy, he was the absolute worst candidate the dems could have produced. There are a ton of other, more worthy dems that should have run against Bush, and who would have easily won.

It was a worse against worst campaign, and Kerry was, by far, the 'worst'. Quit acting like Kerry was a frickin angel. He brought about his own political demise. He didn't need any help from the republicans.

my wife and i actually printed out a breakdown of each democratic candidate that year and sat down and went through their stance on the majority of the major issues and we both aligned closer with kerry than any of the other candidates, though wesley clark was close. this was long before kerry ran his campaign into the ground. he was definitely a lackluster candidate, but it's quite a stretch to claim that kerry was "by far the worst" candidate between he and bush. i have a hard time believing kerry could have made half of the mistakes bush has made, even if he tried. i've never said he was an 'angel', but he definitely wasn't half as bad as the republican spin machinie tried to make him out to be.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Hmm, where was Clinton during Vietnam? Hmmm??

As far as I know Clinton didn't go to Vietnam. But at last time I checked, Clinton didn't lie to send anyone to war out of petty revenge, oil, and greed.

Last time I checked Bush, Cheney, and Rumseld all got deferments(spelling?) in order not to go to Iraq. But yet, they can send THOUSANDS to war and THOUSANDS can be killed due to lies and greed? You really are a lost republican and are no better than them.

 

[lazur]

No, they were calling his service record into question.

All of the commercials I saw addressed his character during the war. Tossing his medals, claiming vets killed/raped innocent civilians, etc.

Unless you consider their calling him a disgrace 'calling his service record into question'?

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Hmm, where was Clinton during Vietnam? Hmmm?? At least Bush was a pilot in the guard.

And yet, he still didn't go into Vietnam because his daddy got him out of it. Stop spinning and just admit the man was a coward then and is a coward now.

 

[lazur]

As far as I know Clinton didn't go to Vietnam. But at last time I checked, Clinton didn't lie to send anyone to war out of petty revenge, oil, and greed.

Last time I checked Bush, Cheney, and Rumseld all got deferments(spelling?) in order not to go to Iraq. But yet, they can send THOUSANDS to war and THOUSANDS can be killed due to lies and greed? You really are a lost republican and are no better than them.

LOL Clinton dodged the draft, tyvm. My point is - quit trying to claim people who avoid going to war are always republicans.

And there were a few conflicts while Clinton was pres during which he also sent soldiers to be killed.

Doesn't change the fact that I voted for Clinton ... twice.

 

[sinewave]

lazur, you've been somewhat insightful in the past, but i gotta say you're coming off as a charicature for the "partisan hack" persona in this thread.

 

[jaguarr]

lazur, for someone who claims to be non-partisan you certainly seem to expend a HUGE amount of energy defending Bush while attacking Democratic party leaders; often on the same type of unsubstantiated "evidence" that you belittle others for criticizing Bush with. Just an observation, man.

jag

 

[lazur]

And yet, he still didn't go into Vietnam because his daddy got him out of it. Stop spinning and just admit the man was a coward then and is a coward now.

No more so than Clinton, probably less so in fact. But that still wasn't a qualifier for Clinton, so why is it for Bush again?? Thanks for your careful insight .

 

[lazur]

lazur, for someone who claims to be non-partisan you certainly seem to expend a HUGE amount of energy defending Bush while attacking Democratic party leaders; often on the same type of unsubstantiated "evidence" that you belittle others for criticizing Bush with. Just an observation, man.

jag

All I'm suggesting, ALLLLL I'm suggesting is that unless there's evidence to prove something, you can't sit here and eat this crap up like it's the word of God.

And my secondary point is that, no matter what side of the aisle someone is on, they will believe ANYTHING negative about a politician they hate. If someone came on here and said Bush killed babies in his spare time, but didn't have any evidence to back it up, you guys would eat it up like it's the Gospel.

Same goes for republicans who hate some democrats.

I'm not taking any sides here. I'm simply looking for a little balance here.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

No more so than Clinton, probably less so in fact. But that still wasn't a qualifier for Clinton, so why is it for Bush again?? Thanks for your careful insight .

What I'm saying is Clinton didn't send thousands to war so he can gain money, oil, and out of personal revenge. I'm not saying Clinton was and is an angel by any means, but at least he didn't try to come off as some war veteran and send innocent lives to die for his cause.

We had a good economy, jobs were growing, other countries were our allies, and all around we had a good state of mind. Then Bush comes in and literally just drains America and alienates every country in the process.

You defend Bush like there is no tomorrow and that's fine. Just know that the more you defend him and follow is beliefs, the more you prove yourself to be no better than him.

 

[Daisy]

Shouldn't the title of this be "Libby says Cheney said Bush authorized CIA leak"?

 

[lazur]

What I'm saying is Clinton didn't send thousands to war so he can gain money, oil, and out of personal revenge. I'm not saying Clinton was and is an angel by any means, but at least he didn't try to come off as some war veteran and send innocent lives to die for his cause.

We had a good economy, jobs were growing, other countries were our allies, and all around we had a good state of mind. Then Bush comes in and literally just drains America and alienates every country in the process.

You defend Bush like there is no tomorrow and that's fine. Just know that the more you defend him and follow is beliefs, the more you prove yourself to be no better than him.

Ugh, sorry, but asking people to be balanced and reasoned in their thinking, instead of automatically believing every negative thing that comes through the door, is not 'following Bush's beliefs', but thanks for the overly dramatic retort. It always adds flavor to the discussion when someone can be painted as the unreasonable fanatic.

 

[lazur]

Shouldn't the title of this be "Libby says Cheney said Bush authorized CIA leak"?

Or maybe "Libby says Cheney said Bush authorized CIA leak while killing babies."

 

[jaguarr]

All I'm suggesting, ALLLLL I'm suggesting is that unless there's evidence to prove something, you can't sit here and eat this crap up like it's the word of God.

And my secondary point is that, no matter what side of the aisle someone is on, they will believe ANYTHING negative about a politician they hate. If someone came on here and said Bush killed babies in his spare time, but didn't have any evidence to back it up, you guys would eat it up like it's the Gospel.

Same goes for republicans who hate some democrats.

I'm not taking any sides here. I'm simply looking for a little balance here.

Then why don't you just say that to begin with? I know you're perfectly capable of being reasonable, and I do understand where you're coming from. But your current approach just makes you appear to be a complete Bush sycophant, rather than the fair and balanced person who tries not to make assumptions that I'm guessing you are probably more like in your real life.

jag