Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>>>that is if you really want to get better<<<
And there's the end of that discussion. They don't have a problem. It's those who insist that indisputable, uncomfortable facts should be believed who have problems. If the facts don't support your ideology you just don't believe it. Simple as that. We're basically dealing with the political equivalence of the flat earth society here.
>>>the only known facts are that she worked for the CIA and that her status was classified<<<
And then there's other known fact that you and eddy REFUSE to accept which frankly makes it harder and harder to take either one of you seriously in anything you say.
Plame's testimony to congress under oath:
REP. JOHN YARMUTH (D-KY): I'd like to start by asking you about July 14, 2003, the day that Robert Novak wrote the column in the Chicago Sun Times identifying you as an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Quote -- but before I get to that, I want to ask you about the day before, July 13th, my understanding is that on that date, you were covert. Is that correct?
MS. PLAME WILSON: I was a covert officer, correct.
REP. YARMUTH: Did the July 14th column destroy your covert position and your classified status?
MS. PLAME WILSON: Yes it did.
http://yargb.blogspot.com/2007/03/transcript-of-plame-testimony.html
How about either accepting the fact that she was covert OR start talking about how Plame perjured herself in congress and needs to go to jail?
>>>well, you forgot to mention the important part -- INTENT TO OUT a COVERT agent<<<
Didn't forget that at all, but until now you were still in denial about Plame's covert status so why bother talking about intent to out her? Sounds like you finally have accepted her true status as covert so now I can say that I agree with you on the intent issue. Never been proven which is what everyone expected from the start. The law - as written - makes in almost impossible to prove that someone violated it.
That said.......wouldn't it be reasonable to expect some of the nations highest office holders in Washington to assume that anyone working for the CIA might be covert and that gossiping about him/her at cocktail parties may not be a great idea? They've all said they didn't know what her status was which implies they knew she could possibly be covert.
nicely summed up. Never knew there were so many of them though...
guess I just have a hard time staying quiet when fanatics peddle bald-faced lies in a public forum. Can't help it...
>>>no one to this day, including Plame herself has determined that Plame was "covert" as defined in the law<<<
Not even close. Everyone has determined she was covert except about 30% who never will regardless of what facts are shoved in their face.
"The law cites two criteria for a current officer or employee of an intelligence agency: that person's "identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information" and that officer has to be "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States."
The CIA has confirmed that her status was classified and Plame herself testified under oath that she had served overseas during the past 5 years.
What's still not clear about this?
>>>even the CIA is not sure about her covert status<<<
Bullshit and you know it. This is what the CIA said:
"it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."
Only the fringe freaks of the Bush apologist community would interpret that as ignorance on the CIA's part. All the facts regarding her status have been made available and it's really not that difficult to connect the dots - if you're honest that is.
"The law cites two criteria for a current officer or employee of an intelligence agency: that person's "identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information" and that officer has to be "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States."
The CIA has confirmed that her status was classified and Plame herself testified under oath that she had served overseas during the past 5 years. And there you go.
The only thing you can pin your hopes on now is that Plame decided to ruin her life permanently and lie under oath about her overseas assignments. Haven't seen any constructive voices suggesting she did so what will it take for you to call this another lost battle on behalf of the fascist Bush scum?
If you don't mind.......what does Valerie Plame have to do with lost emails and attorney firings? Neither one seems like a good choice for you to defend so why asking for so much pain?
Here........your last outpost on this issue - Victoria Toensing - may have perjured herself in congress trying to make this work:
"But Toensing claims that when she denies Valerie Wilson was a "covert" CIA employee she only means that Valerie Wilson was not a "covert agent" under the definitions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. But to make this case, Toensing has to be disingenuous about the law she helped to craft.
During her testimony on Friday, she pointed to the law's definition of a "covert agent" and said, "The person is supposed to reside outside of the United States." That is not what the law says--and one can presume Toensing knows the actual details of the legislation. In defining a "covert agent" (whose identity cannot be disclosed under the act), the law cites two criteria for a current officer or employee of an intelligence agency: that person's "identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information" and that officer has to be "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." Pay attention to Toensing's sleight of hand. Under oath, she told the committee the law applied to clandestine officers residing abroad. Not so.
In her recent Washington Post piece, Toensing wrote of Valerie Wilson, "She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years of the date of Novak's column." This means, Toensing has argued, that Valerie Wilson could not be covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. But Valerie Wilson testified that she had been dispatched on overseas missions under cover in the five years prior to the Novak column--an indication she had "served" abroad. (Hubris reported that as well.) Toensing is free to maintain that the law ought to cover only those officers residing overseas as part of a long-term foreign assignment. But that is not what the act says. By stating that the act defines a "covert agent" as an officer residing abroad (as opposed to an officer who had "served" overseas), Toensing misrepresented the law to members of the committee.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=177049
>>>Even if true, there is no evidence of anything ILLEGAL occuring<<<
No evidence.......yet, but obstruction of justice seems like a good possibility. That's illegal, right?
Actually I wasn't talking about any form of interrogation specifically. How do you rule anything in or out with a presidency like this? Constitutional scholars don't know where to begin and arch conservatives don't know how to escape. But to you, things couldn't be better..
>>>Second you're comparing the deaths of 100's of thousands to an increase in a minumum wage<<<
No I'm not. I'm saying that the people you side with on the war are the same bastards who don't give a flying f#*k about their own people suffering but all of a sudden their eyes glass over when suffering Iraqis are mentioned. Just tell me you really don't believe the welfare of Iraqis even figures into Bush's decision making and you'll be at least partially forgiven for exercising poor judgement.
We're slowly but surely taking control of that country, so that we free the people of Iraq
Bush, March 23, 2003
>>>Actually that wasn't the question<<<
Actually it was if you try to recall where we started. The old Vietnam lines are repeated now describing the horrors that await the world if america gets out of a misguided war. What makes you think that kind of propaganda is more believable today than it was 40 years ago?
>>>F the Cambodians, F the Iraqis that will die in a bloodbath if we leave there immediately<<<
What's this now? Tears and compassion for Iraqis and Cambodians from the same party that voted against the first increase in minimum wage in 10 years for americans? You'll excuse me if I take a cautious stance to your emotions?
>>>no recall of what happened in Cambodia after we left the area??<<<
Question is......how did leaving Vietnam ultimately affect america's destiny and safety?
Would you agree that Nixon was off base?
(For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would thus be a disaster of immense magnitude.)
>>>under our constitution it is called impeachment<<<
You're saying a president can't be questioned unless it's in conjunction with impeachment proceedings?
"After Ms. Jones filed the lawsuit, the attorneys for President Clinton moved to delay any proceedings, contending that the Constitution required that any legal action be deferred until his term ended, an issue ultimately decided against the President by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). Following the Supreme Court decision allowing the Jones lawsuit to proceed, pre-trial discovery commenced in which various potential witnesses were subpoenaed for information related to the Jones incident and, over objections of the President's attorneys, Mr. Clinton's alleged sexual approaches to other women.
On August 17, the President testified for over four hours before Starr's grand jury on closed-circuit television from the White House.
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
>>>Any thoughts how much worse things will get if we cut and run as the dems want??<<<
Has a familiar ring to it...
President Nixon, November 3, 1969:
For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would thus be a disaster of immense magnitude.
A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends. Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of world conquest. This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace-in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere.
PRESIDENT JOHNSON, July 28, 1965:
But we will not surrender. And we will not retreat. We intend to convince the Communists that we cannot be defeated by force of arms or by superior power. I have asked the commanding general, General Westmoreland, what more he needs to meet this mounting aggression. He has told me, and we will meet his needs.
GENERAL WESTMORELAND: Very very encouraged. I've never been more encouraged during my entire, almost four years in this country. I think we're making real progress. Everybody is very optimistic that I know of, who is intimately associated with our effort there.
Although some enemy units are still occupying positions in a few cities, they are rapidly being driven out."
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/contemporaneous-government-statements.html
>>>and you post this garbage rant as -- what ??<<<
As more evidence that the scum you hold dear will eventually be held accountable. Don't focus on the finer points or the dramatic delivery. Focus on the fact that everyday brings new insider discontent to the surface. Have no idea what the timetable is or what Bush/Cheney are destined for but it's becoming clear they will be asked to explain themselves to the country sooner or later in a setting they don't get to choose.
>>>these guys will leave office as if business as usual and will not be held accountable.. not one iota.. im so disgusted..<<<
I'm disgusted too along with a majority but to 40% of the country these war criminals are heroes. Chew on that for a while...
>>>anyone want to argue with this guy<<<
I would. But I wouldn't argue with this guy. Would you? Robert Baer, former CIA operative:
MATTHEWS: Did we fight a war just for aggressive reasons? Or was there a self-defense aspect...
(CROSSTALK)
BAER: We fought a war on a lie. And that‘s the important issue, on a lie.
MATTHEWS: Whose?
BAER: The administration‘s, the White House‘s. It was not the CIA‘s.
It was not the Pentagon‘s. This stuff was ordered top-down.
MATTHEWS: What is George Tenet going to say in his book, when it comes out in a couple of weeks? Is he going to say, they made me do it?
BAER: Tenet is a political servant of Washington. He will come in and say, this is what they wanted. I served the president, this executive branch. I was an employee of...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Who is the CIA director responsive to, under the Constitution, under our form of government?
(CROSSTALK)
BAER: The president of the United States.
MATTHEWS: So, if the president says the moon is made of blue cheese, he‘s supposed to say that?
BAER: Got to. And then they put it in the national intelligence estimate October 2002, gave it to Congress. And then they went out to the press and sold this.
I mean, look, “The Washington Post” and “The New York Times” were—took point on this.
MATTHEWS: Why would some young person with a good education ever want to serve an agency like CIA, if they were told what you just said, that the purpose of our Central Intelligence and Defense Intelligence is to mouth the words the president wants spoken, and not to defense this country?
BAER: The attrition rate is horrendous at the CIA as of today. People are leaving in—they‘re calling me, looking for jobs. And, you know, if they‘re calling me, they‘re in trouble.
MATTHEWS: Well, you know, whatever you think about it, we need intelligence. We need it more than ever.
(CROSSTALK)
BAER: And, by the way, this director is much better than anyone in the past. He‘s really trying to control...
MATTHEWS: Will he stand up against the ideologues in this administration, the Scooter Libbys and the Doug Feiths?
BAER: No. The Pentagon is still preeminent.
MATTHEWS: So, they still call them up and tell them what they want?
(CROSSTALK)
BAER: They have all the money. They have the satellites. They have got the intercepts.
MATTHEWS: You know, I wish Capitol Hill—you know, it‘s spending a lot of time on the U.S. attorneys issue. I wish they would start calling people like Doug Feith and Scooter, who knows people up there, and say, how did we get in this war? Just for the history books, just to get it written down—nobody is going to jail. What happened?
BAER: Somebody has got to be held responsible. We‘re going to there 10 years from now. There‘s going to be tens of thousands killed.
MATTHEWS: That‘s the...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: The worst thing you can say about this policy is, it‘s very hard to deal with it now. The worst thing you can say, we went into a boxed canyon, and now there is no good way out.
BAER: There is no way out.
MATTHEWS: And that‘s the problem. That wasn‘t good policy...
BAER: Trillions and trillions of dollars, and people.
MATTHEWS: ... to put us where we can‘t get out.
BAER: Can‘t get out.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18022551/
McCain: I Didn't Need Armed Guard In Iraq
PHOENIX, April 10, 2007
McCain: I Didn't Need Armed Guard In Iraq
(CBS/AP) Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain said he would have taken his tour of an Iraqi market last week even if he had not been accompanied by heavily armed U.S. soldiers.
McCain said he would have walked through a central Baghdad market without the military protection, but the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, had recommended the armed escort.
"I'm not notorious for being nervous about going anywhere," said McCain. "I'll gladly go almost anywhere in the world, under any circumstances, but I did respond and do what Gen. Petraeus asked me to do."
McCain and other members of a congressional delegation toured the market last week, traveling in armored military vehicles and wearing body armor during their hour-long excursion.
The congressional delegation said the trips were proof that security was improving in the capital.
Some Iraqis in Baghdad said McCain's account of the visit to the Shorja market did not represent the current reality in the capital. The market has been hit by several recent bombings, including one in February that killed 137 people.
On Sunday, McCain told 60 Minutes he "misspoke" when he told reporters that conditions in Baghdad had improved so much that Americans could now walk freely through parts of the capital.
But at a news conference Monday in Phoenix, McCain said he talked to many Iraqis in the market who told him that, while they still worried about a sniper operating there, they felt as though things were getting better.
"That place is being rebuilt today and is a functioning market," McCain said. "Of course it isn't entirely safe, but it certainly is a functioning market and progress is being made there."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/10/politics/main2667444.shtml
Michael Ware from Baghdad 2 weeks ago:
BLITZER: Michael, when Senator McCain says that there are at least some areas of Baghdad where people can walk around and -- whether it's General Petraeus, the U.S. military commander, or others, are there at least some areas where you could emerge outside of the Green Zone, the international zone, where people can go out, go to a coffee shop, go to a restaurant, and simply take a stroll?
WARE: I can answer this very quickly, Wolf. No. No way on earth can a westerner, particularly an American, stroll any street of this capital of more than five million people.
I mean, if al Qaeda doesn't get wind of you, or if one of the Sunni insurgent groups don't descend upon you, or if someone doesn't tip off a Shia militia, then the nearest criminal gang is just going to see dollar signs and scoop you up. Honestly, Wolf, you'd barely last 20 minutes out there.
I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/27/sitroom.02.html
>>>The wiretapping "scandal", the Plame "scandal" were all gonna lead to his impeachment<<<
Said who? Certainly not a majority of Washington democrats who understand that Bush is much more valuable in office than impeached and forgotten in Crawford. Having this idiot in front of cameras almost daily, reminding americans of what republican's idea of smart leadership looks like is advertising money can't buy.
>>>Please show links to where I ever said we shouldn't use diplomacy.<<<
Your support for an administration that chooses the silent treatment over diplomacy every chance they get is all we need to know. The Korea deal almost seemed like an accident where the US was dragged to the table kicking and screaming by 4 other countries.
>>>Even with countires like Syria- despite the public stances of Israel and the US, there are back channel ways to communicate<<<
If there was back channel diplomacy going on why would Syria's president practically beg the US - in public - to approach them?
"CAIRO, Egypt -- Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview aired Monday that the Bush administration does not have the vision to bring peace in Iraq and that his country could help calm the crisis if approached."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020500502.html
>>>The dems are really on a path to self dewstruct. The majority of the American people don't share their way left stance<<<
Gotta give them credit though. For a party that's self destructing with way left politics, gaining 37 house seats and 6 senate seats in the last election isn't bad.
>>>YOu can't have anybody and their aunt trying to engage in diplomacy<<<
Sounds like an endorsement for diplomacy which is progress coming from your camp. So if you've come that far now, don't you also see that if those who should be engaged in diplomacy did their job, aunt Pelosi wouldn't have to step in?
>>>Can you prove where he is quoting from that website? My bet is you don't answer...<<<
Quoted and Proud!
I would like to say a few words to the new visitors who are not so familiar with this blog. I have noticed that our traffic nearly tripled today and that most of the extra traffic is coming from pages talking about the recent speech by President Bush in which he mentioned a quote from our March 5 article on the WSJ…New visitors, welcome to ITM!
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
Not that hard to find these things you know. So for you to ask others to do it for you can only mean one of two things:
1. You're not interested in the truth about George Bush and his methods. Ann Coulter and a few other select sources tell you all you need to know.
2. You know what was said is true but you hope nobody will find proof of it and expose it.
I wouldn't call neither door # 1 or 2 a winner but you may take issue with that...
I know what the act says. The question is.......how do you know she "conducted foreign policy" rather than engaging in a fact-finding mission which by the way was by invitation? Congress needs to be informed in order to cast informed votes....no?
"CAIRO, Egypt -- Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview aired Monday that the Bush administration does not have the vision to bring peace in Iraq and that his country could help calm the crisis if approached."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020500502.html
>>>pelosi DID break the law and should be prosecuted<<<
what part of the Logan law did she break......oh, well never mind. Forgot you don't do questions. Just Fox and Rush inspired comments.
>>>With them on, it's easy to rationalize how the exact same action can be an abomination when reps do it, and perfectly legal for the dems<<<
Problem is that it isn't "the exact same action". Best i can tell, no previous president has:
1. Voluntarily withdrawn a nomination, waited for congress to leave town for a holiday and then appointed the candidate he just withdrew. Any previous similar cases had a nomination pending in congress.
2. Appointed an ambassador to serve without pay which is what they've done with Fox. And that's what appears to be illegal about this. An ambassador position has a fixed rate of pay or a "statutory entitlement" which can't be waived. They can't pay him because he was recess appointed but they also can't waive his pay for statutory reasons.
Understand?
>>>For the dems to be in such a dither is the epitome of hypocrisy -- and apparently you are right there with them.<<<
For that accusation to be valid you have to be assured of the fact that I condoned past recess appointments under similar circumstances which I didn't. Abuse of power turns my gut no matter who the abuser is so you missed the target and I know you're eager to tell me you're sorry but it's ok.
>>>it is not "illegal" by any stretch of the imagination.<<<
Don't know if it is or not. It sure as hell is abusive. If the intent of the law is to enable a president to act without congress' approval when they're on lengthy leaves, then using it the moment they leave town for easter holiday doesn't seem to live up to the spirit of the intent.
Another back door recess appointment
Bush Skirts Congress, Names Ambassador
WASHINGTON, April 4, 2007
(AP) President Bush named Republican fundraiser Sam Fox as U.S. ambassador to Belgium on Wednesday, using a maneuver that allowed him to bypass Congress, where Democrats had derailed Fox's nomination.
The appointment, made while lawmakers were out of town on spring break, prompted angry rebukes from Democrats, who said Bush's action may even be illegal.
Democrats had denounced Fox for his donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential campaign. The group's TV ads, which claimed that Sen. John Kerry exaggerated his military record in Vietnam, were viewed as a major factor in the Massachusetts Democrat's election loss.
Recognizing Fox did not have the votes to obtain Senate confirmation in the Foreign Relations Committee, Bush withdrew the nomination last week. On Wednesday, with the Senate on a one-week break, the president used his power to make recess appointments to put Fox in the job without Senate confirmation.
This means Fox can remain ambassador until the end of the next session of Congress, effectively through the end of the Bush presidency.
"It's sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate," Kerry said in a statement.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he plans to ask the Government Accountability Office to issue an opinion on whether the recess appointment is legal.
Recess appointments are intended to give the president flexibility if Congress is out for a lengthy period of time, such as the four-week adjournment in summer. But Dodd said the law was not intended to circumvent lawmakers' approval.
"This is really now taking the recess appointment vehicle and abusing this beyond anyone's imagination," said Dodd, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. "This is a travesty."
Bush also used his recess appointment authority to make Andrew Biggs deputy director of Social Security. The president's earlier nomination of Biggs, an outspoken advocate of partially privatizing the government's retirement program, was rejected by Senate Democrats in February.
Presidents since George Washington have made appointments during congressional recesses to fill positions in the executive and judicial branches. Bush has used the authority more frequently than some — but not all — of his most recent predecessors, making 171 so far, compared with 140 for President Clinton over two terms, 77 by his father in one term and 243 by President Reagan during two terms.
Some of Bush's more notable recess appointments include John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton arrived at the U.N. in August 2005 after being appointed during a congressional recess because he twice failed to be confirmed by the Senate. Still unable to get Senate backing, he stepped down in December.
Others include include William Pryor and Charles Pickering as federal appeals court judges, in 2004, and Otto Reich as an assistant secretary of state, in 2002.
Fox, a 77-year-old St. Louis businessman, gave $50,000 to the Swift Boat group. He is national chairman of the Jewish Republican Coalition and was dubbed a "ranger" by Bush's 2004 campaign for raising at least $200,000. He is founder and chairman of the Clayton, Mo.-based Harbour Group, which specializes in the takeover of manufacturing companies.
Fox has donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates and causes since the 1990s.
In answer to questions about the Swift Boat donation, Fox has said he gives when asked, insisting he was not involved with the writing of the ad scripts and never saw them before they aired but had been aware of the general thrust of the group.
Fox issued a statement saying he is "delighted and honored" to accept the ambassadorial appointment.
"As the son of a man who fled Europe to find freedom and a better life, I am especially humbled by the opportunity to return to that continent as this nation's representative," he said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2649551.shtml
>>>Bush does not like it.<<<
No chit? But not liking something in Washington usually means time to sit down and talk. Seen any such inclination on Bush's part or is he only capable of "fu#k you.......I'll show you who's in charge"?
>>>The Repubs AND the Dems would never allow such - they like the game just the way it is now.<<<
They do which is why I called it a long shot. And if you look at how people vote they have nothing to fear. Connecticut voters disapproved of the Iraq war by almost 70% last fall and still reelected Joe Lieberman. The american people disapprove of the war by about 65% and still put John McCain over both Hillary and Obama in current polls. That's the same McCain who who belongs to the radioactive republican party, who wants to escalate in Iraq, continue into Iran and who's only favored by republicans by 20%. Looks like dart throwing rather than a true election process.
>>>There is less difference between the two parties as a whole then there has ever been. Howard Dean and Ron Paul are both trying to change this!!!<<<
Dean already got a taste of what happens to those who try and basically retreated. Paul will be next if he tries. Not trying to rain on the parade but the corruption runs so deep and wide with so much money involved that those who think a single individual can change it need a reality check imo. Long shot as it may be..... a new party is the only cleansing agent - not a democrat or a republican who says he's "different" knowing full well he'll be forced to play ball with the establishment for political survival.
>>>If you read the bills, you will find that the metrics for withdrawal are in the hands of the White House/Defense Dept......There is absolutely no teeth in these bills.<<<
If that's the case, why do we see smoke coming out of Bush's ears each day he appears on TV and promises to veto the bill? A bill that includes full funding for the troops no less?
>>>Perhaps if some of these Rudy lovers read the NYT they'd know Rudy is basically full of shit.<<<
Problem is.....most of the Rudy lovers are also Bush lovers, Cheney lovers and Gonzo lovers so full of shit seems to attract rather then repel with this crowd.
Natural progression is what it looks like. Bush got reelected by reminding people how good he looked standing on a pile of debris with a bullhorn. So now it's Guiliani's turn to point ot that he too operated in that same environment wearing nothing but a dust mask. And that's probably all he needs to say considering how we elect presidents in this country.
>>>HE earned well deserved respect for the way he handled the situation.<<<
Because the full story hasn't been told......until now?
"Several American news organisations are preparing exposés of the “untold story” of 9/11 after Giuliani’s dispute with the firefighters became embarrassingly public last week. He was the only leading presidential candidate not to appear at a Washington gathering of the International Association of Fire Fighters, which accused him of showing a “disgraceful lack of respect for the fallen” after the September 11 attacks.
The firefighters were still using the antiquated “handie-talkie” radios that failed to work during the 1993 bombing of the twin towers, when Giuliani was also mayor. He not only failed to replace them, but also located the city’s new emergency command centre at the World Trade Center against the advice of key officials. It proved useless when it was most needed.
Lack of communication also meant that warnings from police helicopters about an imminent collapse failed to get through.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1530535.ece
>>>Again, there was absolutely nothing illegal about the firings.......The only aspect that is troubling is that it seems as though AG lied.<<<
Doesn't that beg an obvious question? Like......why would AG stumble all over himself with hopeless lies for weeks on end if nothing illegal took place? Why when asked about his involvement did he lie about it instead of saying...."Of course I was involved when 8 USA's are about to get dismissed"...?
Look at this...
"Gonzales has said he participated in no discussions and saw no memos about plans to carry out the firings on Dec. 7 that Democrats contend were politically motivated.
His schedule, however, shows he attended at least one hourlong meeting, on Nov. 27, where he approved a detailed plan to execute the prosecutors' firings."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors
“I don’t think the attorney general’s statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate,” the former Gonzales aide, D. Kyle Sampson, said under questioning at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
“I don’t think it’s accurate,” Mr. Sampson repeated under questioning by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel’s ranking Republican.
“So,” Senator Specter went on, “he was involved in discussions, contrary to the statement he made in his news conference on March 13?”
“I believe — yes, sir,” Mr. Sampson replied."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/washington/29cnd-attorneys.html
How do you square this behavior with an attorney general who's being asked about routine (?) personnel adjustments?
>>>What aobut the US attorneys who were fired when CLinton took office<<<
Instigating eddy or still not getting it? The difference has been explained to you every day here for a month.
The link was to the transcript from which I posted an excerpt. What are you talking about?
>>>speaking of Irak the Model -- they were in the news lately<<<
Sure were....
"OLBERMANN: Lastly, I must ask you about the blog that the president cited today. It‘s now been identified. It‘s IraqTheModel.com. There‘s a pair of dentists who‘ve generally been sympathetic to the American mission. They met with the president in the Oval Office three years ago. But as late as last Friday, on the same blog, they said (INAUDIBLE) the administration, quote, “needs to revise the way it‘s been handling and planning for this critical war.” We‘re down to the president quoting a couple of dentists to prove that the surge is working?
CHANDRASEKARAN: Well, you know, there are dozens of Iraqi bloggers. And I dare say IraqTheModel is one of very, very few to be as rosy as it is, just notwithstanding some of their own skepticism about things and some of their own critical comments. I mean, those guys aren‘t idiots.
But, you know, if we do a more representative sample of what Iraqis are writing in their blogs, and I read a lot of them, you won‘t find as optimistic of a portrait as IraqTheModel portrays."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17856294/