the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:And I'll restate my question for you yet again. If it was a crime to out Plame, and they got away with it as you state, why was Armitage never charged?

Since my name is not Patrick Fitzgerald, I can only speculate that he was not charged because he would probably walk, exactly like Libby did.

I see. It must be interesting to live in your world where judges bring charges and people walk after voluntarily confessing to a "crime" to the prosecutor.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:When it involves treason and coverups.

I guess you only care about it when Democrats get arrested.

Ok, what did Libby do that was treasonous? Also, what did he do that was a cover up? Everyone knew that Armitage was the leaker, to include the prosecutor.

Now, onto another thing, how do you feel about stealing national security documents and destroying them to cover something up? I mean, since you care about that and all.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Since my name is not Patrick Fitzgerald, I can only speculate that he was not charged because he would probably walk, exactly like Libby did.

The fact that he got away with it still does not have anything to do with the fact that he broke the law.

Cognitive Dissonance


like nearly everything with the left

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:It was trying to find out if our country was misled into a war that has killed 3500 people and counting.

Not to let the facts get in the way or anything but Fitzgerald's investigation had nothing to do with the war.

1) "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
2) Joseph Wilson produces a report that debunks the above claim
3) Bush administration leaks Wilson's wife's identity as a CIA operative in retaliation
4) Libby (and others) attempt to coverup the leak
5) Libby is convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice
6) Bush rewards his loyalty by commuting his sentence

It had everything to do with the war.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:but don't think this won't cost them in 2008, unless they can pull another Fl. in 2000 or Ohio in 2004 again.

Nothing happened in Florida in 2000, and nothing happened in Ohio in 2004. Loosen the tin foil hat dogger, it's cutting off the circulation again.

You need to remove your head from the sand. It's affecting your brain.

As for "Democrats", no. I don't play that ****. Show me one post I've made to the contrary. I have stated, not just today, but in the past that the Clinton deal was a bunch of BS. He should have been investigated for his Loral Corp. dealings.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:And I'll restate my question for you yet again. If it was a crime to out Plame, and they got away with it as you state, why was Armitage never charged?

Since my name is not Patrick Fitzgerald, I can only speculate that he was not charged because he would probably walk, exactly like Libby did.

I see. It must be interesting to live in your world where judges bring charges and people walk after voluntarily confessing to a "crime" to the prosecutor.

Our legal system is corrupt. When one party controls three branches of government, it becomes even more corrupt.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:1) "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
2) Joseph Wilson produces a report that debunks the above claim
3) Bush administration leaks Wilson's wife's identity as a CIA operative in retaliation
4) Libby (and others) attempt to coverup the leak
5) Libby is convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice
6) Bush rewards his loyalty by commuting his sentence

Do you have a legal deposition for this? Or is this merely speculation on your part?

RebelKev Wrote:As for "Democrats", no. I don't play that ****. Show me one post I've made to the contrary. I have stated, not just today, but in the past that the Clinton deal was a bunch of BS. He should have been investigated for his Loral Corp. dealings.

Using Ninerfan1's and GGniner's mind-boggling poor logic, if he was guilty then why wasn't he charged?

This argument keeps shifting. For those of you who favor commuting or pardoning, is your contention that Libby DIDN'T lie and/or obstruct justice? Or is that he did, but it's not that big a deal? If the former, why was he convicted? If the latter, why did he lie/obstruct?

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:1) "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
2) Joseph Wilson produces a report that debunks the above claim
3) Bush administration leaks Wilson's wife's identity as a CIA operative in retaliation
4) Libby (and others) attempt to coverup the leak
5) Libby is convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice
6) Bush rewards his loyalty by commuting his sentence

Do you have a legal deposition for this? Or is this merely speculation on your part?

No, I read the news. I suggest you try it occasionally. You might learn something.

Brookes Owl Wrote:This argument keeps shifting. For those of you who favor commuting or pardoning, is your contention that Libby DIDN'T lie and/or obstruct justice? Or is that he did, but it's not that big a deal? If the former, why was he convicted? If the latter, why did he lie/obstruct?

My opinion is that it was a political witch hunt to begin with, something that Clinton went through, and it shouldn't have happened in the first place. Did Clinton lie? Yes. Should he have been put in that position? No. Fitz knew Libby didn't leak the information but went after him because he was still on the scene as an aid to Cheney. It was ALL political and it's f'n bull**** to use the law in that matter, no matter WHICH side of the aisle you're on.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:No, I read the news. I suggest you try it occasionally. You might learn something.

Maybe that's your problem. You actually believe it. Lemme guess, I guess you think this is the most important person to be brought down since Iran-Contra.

Brookes Owl Wrote:This argument keeps shifting. For those of you who favor commuting or pardoning, is your contention that Libby DIDN'T lie and/or obstruct justice? Or is that he did, but it's not that big a deal? If the former, why was he convicted? If the latter, why did he lie/obstruct?

Joseph Wilson is a proven and documented Liar, his own report debunks his NYT's op-ed which was a political hit piece.

His wife was not covert at the time(why Armitage was not charged)

the British still stand by their report that Saddam was seeking Uranium in Niger.....further, 1.77 metric tons of enriched Uranium was found in iraq as I linked earlier.

Fitzgerald is a democrat, he found out early on that the source of the leak is Armitage and should've closed up shop then. he also knew no crime had been committed since she was not covert. instead he dragged case out for two years and called Libby to testify multiple times, his case of forgetting rather than lying is given even more credibility when you factor in there was nothing to lie about.

It was a political witchhunt. the President is given this Constitutional power for this very reason

GGniner Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Since my name is not Patrick Fitzgerald, I can only speculate that he was not charged because he would probably walk, exactly like Libby did.

The fact that he got away with it still does not have anything to do with the fact that he broke the law.

Cognitive Dissonance


like nearly everything with the left

You really need to let up with your obsession. If RebelKev didn't agree with you, he'd call you a political whore.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:No, I read the news. I suggest you try it occasionally. You might learn something.

Maybe that's your problem. You actually believe it. Lemme guess, I guess you think this is the most important person to be brought down since Iran-Contra.

He is the highest ranking White House official to be indicted since then.

I guess you only believe the stuff you find on NewsMax, FoxNews, or Rush Limbaugh's show.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:1) "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
2) Joseph Wilson produces a report that debunks the above claim
3) Bush administration leaks Wilson's wife's identity as a CIA operative in retaliation
4) Libby (and others) attempt to coverup the leak
5) Libby is convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice
6) Bush rewards his loyalty by commuting his sentence

It had everything to do with the war.

greg I believe we've safely established that you know exactly nothing about the american legal system, and you display it yet again in this little gem.

Nothing in Fitzgerald's investigation had anything to do with the case made for Iraq. Fitzgerald was charged with investigating if a crime had been committed in the leaking of Plame's name. He wasn't investigating the case for the Iraq war or any aspect of it.

There is basic logic and reasoning involved in debate, and they must be supported by facts. Until you grasp that basic understanding you'll continue humiliating yourself. Dont' get me wrong, it makes for a great laugh.

Quote:You need to remove your head from the sand. It's affecting your brain.

Junior by any objective standard I have disgraced you in every debate (and that's being generous) we've engaged in. You're just too much of an intellectual coward to understand/admit to it. So you of all people have no business talking about heads in the sand and its effect on the brain.

Quote:Our legal system is corrupt. When one party controls three branches of government, it becomes even more corrupt.

Ah I see. So our system is so corrupt that a republican who confesses to a prosecutor to what you'd call a "crime" can't be convicted. But it's just not corrupt enough for another republican to be convicted of lying about that "crime." Makes perfect sense.

I'm amazed you can still type as deep as that hole you're in is.

Watch the doumentary on HBO about stealing democracy..... some highlights.................

in 2000 Katherine Harris threw out 58,000 voter registrations in Democrat leaning districts sometimes for as little as having the same last name as a convicted felon. Bush beat Gore by 400 votes.

in 2004 Ken Blackwell (in charge of re-electing Bush campaign in Ohio) had voting machines switched in the last 24 hours almost gauranteeing an 8 hour wait in Democcrat districts while having an over abundance of machines in Red districts. Ask yourself this question. Would you wait over 8 hours to vote. What if you had kids at home that needed to be taken care of. Everything about this administartion is rotten to the core. You 27% keep up the faith though!!

GGniner Wrote:

Brookes Owl Wrote:This argument keeps shifting. For those of you who favor commuting or pardoning, is your contention that Libby DIDN'T lie and/or obstruct justice? Or is that he did, but it's not that big a deal? If the former, why was he convicted? If the latter, why did he lie/obstruct?

Joseph Wilson is a proven and documented Liar, his own report debunks his NYT's op-ed which was a political hit piece.

His wife was not covert at the time(why Armitage was not charged)

the British still stand by their report that Saddam was seeking Uranium in Niger.....further, 1.77 metric tons of enriched Uranium was found in iraq as I linked earlier.

Fitzgerald is a democrat, he found out early on that the source of the leak is Armitage and should've closed up shop then. he also knew no crime had been committed since she was not covert. instead he dragged case out for two years and called Libby to testify multiple times, his case of forgetting rather than lying is given even more credibility when you factor in there was nothing to lie about.

It was a political witchhunt. the President is given this Constitutional power for this very reason

Hilarious piece of fiction. Have you ever written for National Lampoon?

the other Greg Childers Wrote:He is the highest ranking White House official to be indicted since then.

I guess you only believe the stuff you find on NewsMax, FoxNews, or Rush Limbaugh's show.

I suggest you do a little more research.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:1) "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
2) Joseph Wilson produces a report that debunks the above claim
3) Bush administration leaks Wilson's wife's identity as a CIA operative in retaliation
4) Libby (and others) attempt to coverup the leak
5) Libby is convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice
6) Bush rewards his loyalty by commuting his sentence

It had everything to do with the war.

greg I believe we've safely established that you know exactly nothing about the american legal system, and you display it yet again in this little gem.

Nothing in Fitzgerald's investigation had anything to do with the case made for Iraq. Fitzgerald was charged with investigating if a crime had been committed in the leaking of Plame's name. He wasn't investigating the case for the Iraq war or any aspect of it.

There is basic logic and reasoning involved in debate, and they must be supported by facts. Until you grasp that basic understanding you'll continue humiliating yourself. Dont' get me wrong, it makes for a great laugh.

Quote:You need to remove your head from the sand. It's affecting your brain.

Junior by any objective standard I have disgraced you in every debate (and that's being generous) we've engaged in. You're just too much of an intellectual coward to understand/admit to it. So you of all people have no business talking about heads in the sand and its effect on the brain.

Quote:Our legal system is corrupt. When one party controls three branches of government, it becomes even more corrupt.

Ah I see. So our system is so corrupt that a republican who confesses to a prosecutor to what you'd call a "crime" can't be convicted. But it's just not corrupt enough for another republican to be convicted of lying about that "crime." Makes perfect sense.

I'm amazed you can still type as deep as that hole you're in is.

You're way out of your league. Your "I'm right and you're wrong" defense is laughable.