Comments on: WHY? I’ll tell you why…

By: scottie

scottie — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:03:00 +0000

Logipundit, type “www.logipundit.blogspot.com” from the website address from another site, and you get re-directed to some obscure search engine : FYI

I could not disagree with you more on the outing of Plame. No evidence?

Cheney’s handwritten messages concerning Plame and Wilson are not evidence that her outing was deliberate?

I read the first chapter of “The Politics of Truth” and I found Wilson’s comment to be quite credible, and I did not find his motivation political in nature. He did serve as the Ambassador to Niger, and I thought more his point was written as an American trying to legitimately question the admin’s obvious political motives for sexing up the intelligence leading up to war. Turns out he was right at the time, and the admin has egg on its face for its cherry-picking intelligence that served its political agenda, namely invading a country without any legitimate justification.

I agree with repack rider. Tell the truth ; it is easier to remember later.

By: Logipundit

Logipundit — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:18:00 +0000

I agree…you’re probably that honest repack. The best example is Scooter Libby. There is NO evidence that anyone in the administration maliciously outed Valerie Plame for the purpose of discrediting her husband. The certainly wanted to discredit Joe Wilson, but the person who leaked their name was Dick Armitage.

Joe Wilson has as much responsibility for putting the target on her back by publishing his op-ed piece.

Scooter Libby testified that he didn’t know some things that he apparently was shown later to have known…at one time…about a plethora of conversations with reporters.

Your legal analysis is technically accurate, and I agree. But there is no doubt that that Democrats smell blood in the water, otherwise this ridiculous story wouldn’t be getting so much traction. If I was her, I would find any excuse I can to keep from testifying, and if I was forced (and she might be), you wouldn’t be able to keep with all of the times that I say, “I cannot recall,” and, “I can’t answer that.”

Probably I would prepare a statement saying “we can fire who the hell we want to because they’re political appointments, you dummies,” and then refuse to answer any questions.

By: JohnnyB

JohnnyB — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:13:00 +0000

When you criminalize political decisions made within the executive authority, essentially criminalize someone for their political views (i.e. loyal Bushies), that’s a real problem. I think the Libby incident sets a bad precedent. I hope Republicans don’t follow it for the next Democratic president, but I doubt it. It seems like the last two years of each presidency is bound to end up like this ad infinitum if the congress is in the hands of the opposite party, and that’s sad. I think the GOP overplayed it’s hand by impeaching Clinton, and the Dems may be doing the same here.

I think repack is too honest for government work, an admirable quality.

By: Repack Rider

Repack Rider — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:40:00 +0000

Why would anyone who plans to tell the truth worry about perjury? Besides, being worried about telling a lie IN THE FUTURE is not protected by the Fifth Amendment. Your Fifth Amendment rights only cover things you have ALREADY DONE.

If that’s the only reason you are invoking it, you are in contempt of Congress because you don’t have that right, and you should sit in jail until you understand the concept. The Fifth Amendment can’t be invoked just because you think people plan to ask you mean questions.

You can ask me ANYTHING, and when I answer, you can notarize it, I’ll sign it, and you can and nail it to the courthouse door.

Being as honest as the day is long makes that possible, because I don’t have to keep my lies straight, and I sleep very well at night also.

Give me an EXAMPLE of a “perjury trap.”