"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.

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.

"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.

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?

"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.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:46:17 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"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.

Besides the point? The British "corroborating evidence" was also bull****
and there is considerable evidence that the Bush administration knew it.
In all this hub-bub smearing Wilson, little effort seems to be given to
the two other officials sent to Niger. The other two officials who
corroborated Wilson's findings. But then, it's a little harder to
discredit a Marine Four Star General, and considerably more dangerous. ;-)