Why are the Democrats being silent?

[badbob]

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." Donald Rumsfeld

"Needless to say, the President is correct. Whatever it was he said."Donald Rumsfeld


badbob

 

[MoW]

But had it not been investigated it would have looked equally as bad on the other end of the spectrum.

There's been a charge against our leaders of cherrypickin intelligence to support their current goals and agendas.

I am for any investigation into these claims.

If we can impeach a guy for getting a lil sugar at work, should we not hold the same standard when someone seemingly leads us to war against the wrong nations? We're attacked by soudis, yet we romp over to two other countries that needed a little 'encouragement' at the time while completely forgetting about the people that attacked us. All while our 'encouraging' is stirring up so many more people that the prospect of future attacks seems inevitable.

Here we go again

He could have stated from the get go the information he knew. He was lauded by both sides as a man of integrity. If he came out and said there was no story then that would have been the end.
As to the nonsensical comment of "If we can impeach a guy for getting a lil sugar at work..." I think you may have "missed" the POINT that he lied under oath. I don't care what the subject matter is/was--in fact it wasn't a huge issue---but lying under oath as the President of the United States is beyond reproach---especially for something like that. If he would do it for that then what else would be open to lying? Again for some----the subject matter fill in the blank is NOT impeachable------lying under oath about fill in the blank IS ---IMPEACHABLE!

 

[Esquire M Busterbury]

I love that quote...anyone catch that cartoon 'The Boondocks'? They harp on a lot of what Rumsfeld's said...Even have Samuel L Jackson doing voices, but they do drop the N-bomb like it's going out of style.

 

[HJB]

I think you may have "missed" the POINT that he lied under oath

...which is what Libby is accused of...

People need to back up and get a little perspective on this issue. Three Executive branch employees leak a CIA agents name to about a half dozen reporters. To focus on one of those employees as a nonpartisan gossip, and ignore the rest of the players in the story, is some obvious cherrypickin.

I'll wait to see what Fitzgerald reports (the allegations that he's partisan are pretty weak, compared to someone like Ken Starr).

An editorial by the Weekly Standard, the biggest cheerleader for us to get into the Iraq mess, is not credible... sorry.

 

[MoW]

Sorry...

this is beyond pathetic. Are you kidding me--have you not been watching every news show lately? Here's 1 more to your liking I guess

http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...,722371.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

Please pay particular attention to the following:

But the disclosure that it was Armitage who mentioned Plame's role to Novak — before Rove confirmed it — muddies the story line of a malicious outing of a covert agent. What's more, it seems that Fitzgerald knew of Armitage's role before he initiated the elaborate investigation that eventually resulted in not only the Libby indictment but also the jailing of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who had refused to reveal her sources.

Some supporters of the administration are gloating over the disclosure of Armitage's role, suggesting that it shows Fitzgerald was on a witch hunt. Some are demanding a presidential pardon for Libby.

 

[HJB]

..."beyond pathetic", huh?...

You linked to two editorials in this thread (pretty selective quoting on the second, I noticed). Maybe it'll help if I explain to you what an editorial is... it's where a writer says "this is MY opinion of the matter"...

Until the fat lady sings, that is until Fitzgerald presents his findings, it's just idle chatter.

Refrain from the insults.

 

[MoW]

Well the editorials are based on the information that's already out there. There is a whole lot of information out there already if you do a search. I wouldn't exactly consider the LA Times "friendly" towards the administration. Do you really think Fitzgerald is going to release the fact that he knew ahead of time there was nothing?
Here is another for your enjoyment---and notice the part that says at the very beginning--"Patrick Fitzgerald's three-year manhunt to track down who blew Valerie Plame's CIA "cover" has been exposed as a costly sham." What's of interest is that despite being an editorial he uses the phrase 'has been exposed'. Not could be, might be, soon to find out that...etc.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=241744137262638


I will be putting out my personal special report in a few months as to the fact that the sky is indeed blue! People can editorialize and make their own snap decisions before my special report but if I was you I would wait until I release my report just in case.

I'm sure though, when all this is over you will be back here when---I mean IF you are wrong and they were right.

 

[Big Ruger]

The Dems are keeping quiet because they got what they wanted. They destroyed the Presidents credibility. There was no crime here until the investigation started. Not only did Fitzgerald know who leaked the info, he knew emediately and told Armitage to keep quiet about it. Now I am not saying hes a political hack. Put yourself in his shoes, the biggest investigation of his career and he stumbles into the truth overnite? Of course he didn't believe it could be that simple, after all didn't Chuck Shumer, Joe Wilson, and a whole pack of other democrats say it was a giant conspiracy? Well it was. Richard Armitage worked at State with clown Wilson. They both worked for Colin Powell. Its no secret that all disagree with The move into Iraq. I'm not saying they all colluded, but follow the dots. Really I think the whole thing was put up by Shumer and clown Wilson in order to hurt Bush. They both knew right up front that the whitehouse had nothing to do with this. I particularly think the little lawsuit by clowns Wilson is comical. Why are they suing Rove ? Hell they dont even know.