OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:33:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


NBC reportter Andrea Mitchell knew, but the NBC Washington Bureau chief
didn't? Not likely.

Christof knew. Pincus knew. Mitchell knew. Russert knew. Russert lied
to the GJ about not knowing.

Why would he?

To further an agenda?
To protect his source?

Who knows!


Besides, Russert is only a small part of the equation. A
half dozen other sources have Libby knowing about Plame, before his talk
with Russert. Are you saying they all lied?

I believe that Libby knew about Plame before his talk with Russert. But
that fact alone doesn't mean that Russert didn't know...nor that he didn't
lie about his conversation with Libby.

How anyone is supposed to recall the details of a conversation that took
place 2 years ago is beyond me. I write down the dental-related portions of
my conversations with my patients. If I forget to write it down, and
discover one month later that I forgot to write it down, there is no way in
hell I remember the *exact* details and chronology of the discussion.




Actually, the White House has already been convicted by the media and
public opinion. They stand more to gain than lose with this
investigation.

I'm not sure public opinion has convicted Libby, but it is slowly starting
to indict Bush on his run-up to war. If Americans are still dying when
Libby goes to trail, even if he is exonerated will be irrelevant to public
opinion on Bush.


The Libby perjury charges and Bush's run-up to the war are mutally exclusive
and not linked in the least way.

I still can't figure out how anybody can make that stretch.

Carl Levin just spoke with Chris Matthews on Nov. 7th:


MATTHEWS: What came first do you believe, Senator? Their desire to go to
war or the way they looked at the evidence?

LEVIN: I think basically they decided immediately after 9/11 to go after
Saddam. They began to-LOOK THERE WAS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM HAD
NUCLEAR WEAPONS, BY THE WAY. THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THERE IS PLENTY OF
EVIDENCE OF THAT.

Where they fell short, the administration fell short, was getting
intelligence from the intelligence community about a link, alleged link
between the people who attacked us, al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein.



Remember, though, that Bush listed Saddam's pursuit of WMD as the casus
belli. And Levin does not dispute that the evidence suggested that Saddam
had WMD.



I realize that Levin voted against House joint resolution 114 (for war in
Iraq), but the democratic Vice-Chairman of the intel committee saw the same
intel and voted yes.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090013

Please stop quoting mediamatters.org...or I'll start quoting Newsmax.


Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3)
progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively
monitoring, analyzing, and *CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION* in the
U.S. media.

The conclusion in the opening statement of this post is debunked further in
the text. This makes no sense unless it's assumed that no-one will read the
entire article.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

Harry Krause wrote:

Skipper wrote:
DSK wrote:

What happened to integrity & accountability?

Ted

Ahh, Skipper, aka Adolf Mann, rec.boat's own little neonazi.

Whatever happened to civility, integrity & accountability?
Chappaquiddick, the politics of political assassination, Borking,
anti-American fifth column activities, stonewalling judicial
nominations, and the now famous semen stained blue blew dress...among
many others.

--
Skipper

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:01:52 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090013

Please stop quoting mediamatters.org...or I'll start quoting Newsmax.

I used the cite, for one reason, to get the complete quote.

" It was widely known among those of us who cover the
intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track
down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a
number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her
actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving
weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3)
progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively
monitoring, analyzing, and *CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION* in
the U.S. media.

LOL, there is a very good reason for that. In the above quote, everything
after the "But frankly", qualifies the entire statement. Now, let's try a
little experiment. Put the entire first sentence in quotes, and google
it. Notice all the right wing sites that come up, *without* the
qualifying last sentence? NewsMax, FreeRepublic, WorldNetDaily, etc.
Seems there is a need for *CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION*.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:24:07 +0000, NOYB wrote:



How anyone is supposed to recall the details of a conversation that took
place 2 years ago is beyond me. I write down the dental-related portions
of my conversations with my patients. If I forget to write it down, and
discover one month later that I forgot to write it down, there is no way
in hell I remember the *exact* details and chronology of the discussion.

Ah, but he was not being charged because he had a faulty memory, he was
charged because he testified very clearly to things that didn't happen,
and multiple times. For a lawyer, he should have known better. I'm
guessing Rove wasn't charged, because he was smart enough to have a faulty
memory.



The Libby perjury charges and Bush's run-up to the war are mutally
exclusive and not linked in the least way.

I still can't figure out how anybody can make that stretch.

Except, it was in defense of faulty intelligence, the Niger documents.
Maybe you can't make that stretch, but I guarantee the American people
can, and are.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:01:52 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090013

Please stop quoting mediamatters.org...or I'll start quoting Newsmax.

I used the cite, for one reason, to get the complete quote.

I was still out of context because it didn't include the question that
preceded it.



" It was widely known among those of us who cover the
intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track
down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger.

What was widely known? Oh yeah..."IT" was widely known. What's "IT"?

Here's a clue: "Do we have any idea how widely known *IT* was in Washington
that
Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?"

"IT"="that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA".


Kinda changes the meaning of her statement, eh?

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:24:07 +0000, NOYB wrote:



How anyone is supposed to recall the details of a conversation that took
place 2 years ago is beyond me. I write down the dental-related portions
of my conversations with my patients. If I forget to write it down, and
discover one month later that I forgot to write it down, there is no way
in hell I remember the *exact* details and chronology of the discussion.

Ah, but he was not being charged because he had a faulty memory, he was
charged because he testified very clearly to things that didn't happen,
and multiple times. For a lawyer, he should have known better. I'm
guessing Rove wasn't charged, because he was smart enough to have a faulty
memory.



The Libby perjury charges and Bush's run-up to the war are mutally
exclusive and not linked in the least way.

I still can't figure out how anybody can make that stretch.

Except, it was in defense of faulty intelligence, the Niger documents.
Maybe you can't make that stretch, but I guarantee the American people
can, and are.

Bush's speech referred to corroborating evidence from MI6 that had nothing
to do with the supposedly forged yellowcake memo.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:56:17 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I was still out of context because it didn't include the question that
preceded it.

If you read back in the thread, you provided the context, vis a vis Imus.

IMUS: Apparently on October 3, 2003, you said it was "widely known" that
Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

Anyway, did you try my little experiment? Interesting results, aren't
they?

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:57:26 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush's speech referred to corroborating evidence from MI6 that had nothing
to do with the supposedly forged yellowcake memo.

And have you tried to track the "corroborating evidence" down? Good luck!

I do have a cite for the Downing Street Memos, interested?

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:57:26 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush's speech referred to corroborating evidence from MI6 that had
nothing
to do with the supposedly forged yellowcake memo.

And have you tried to track the "corroborating evidence" down? Good luck!

That's besides the point. You said "Niger documents". Bush wasn't
referring to the Niger documents in his speech.