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. ;-)