Miers withdraws
October 28th, 2005 at 4:03 pm by David FarrarHarriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination for the US Supreme Court.
The Democrats for once did the sensible thing and stayed quiet on this issue while the Bush nomination was savaged by his own supporters.
Some in the media try to simplistically portray it as the hard right being upset because she was not conservative enough. However in fact for many the issue was simply she was not qualified enough. Many thought she probably would vote ‘the right way’ but that supreme court justices need to be of the very highest calibre, and she wasn’t.
In some good news for Bush though, it looks like Karl Rove will not be indicted. They will be much relieved.
Related posts:
- GOP in trouble
- Supreme Court agrees to hear Maori Council appeal
- Supreme Court Bill passed
- Marriage Bill does not have the numbers
October 28th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
I liked this comment of mine, so I thought I’d post it again – I think it would be unfortunate if the Miers nomination signals the end of the appointment of non-judges to the Supreme Court…
Now Harriet Miers may well have been unqualified to be a Supreme Court Judge (I certainly don’t know), but it clearly the case that one need not have been a judge previously to be good on the Supreme Court (I’ll suggest Renquist for a start).
Look at this Supreme Court:
Chief Justice – a DA and former State Governor and VeeP candidate.
Associate Justices – Civilian Co-ordinator of forced internment of Japanese during WWII and attorney-general;
Former Attroney-General, later War Crimes preosecutor;
Artic explorer, infantry officer, Ohio state congressman, Mayor of Cleveland, US Senator;
US senator, Appeals Court Judge;
Secretary of War, co-founder of the ACLU;
US Senator, one-time member of the KKK;
Solicitor-General, did not even hold a law degree;
Professor at Columbia, chair of the SEC.
You may recognise this as the court that unanimously ruled “seperate but equal” unconstitutional, desegregating America’s schools. Many present were also on the court that invented Miranda rights…
Vote:October 28th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
The problem with Miers was:
- She looked like a Friend of Bush appointed as a favour like that of Michael Brown, Head of FEMA. It got to the stage where people were joking about Dubya appointing his own accountant to the Head of the Federal Reserve.
- The style and content of her writing didn’t inspire people with confidence. Judges are expected to give clear decisions that people can follow. Miers looked like she was capable of neither.
- She looked so hopeless compared to Bush’s previous pick: John Roberts.
Vote:October 28th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
“Ann Coulter is happy.”
So am I. Miers was an unfortunate choice. Hopefully Bush will now choose a genuine constitutional conservative with the right legal experience and credentials.
Vote:October 28th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
My only regrets are that I didn’t put enough money on the contract that this nomination wouldn’t be confirmed, but most on it that it would come to a vote, but that she would be rejected.
Peter, the straw that broke … was her 1993 speech. After that even the few religious right groups that had signed up, changed from wait-and-see to reject.
It’s a pity for the woman though. No one would wish someone else to go through this.
Vote:October 28th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
Looks like the call for ‘an up or down vote on the floor of the senate’ is ignored when the GOP doesnt like the nominee.
Vote:Bush is allready amoung the least popular of presidents,( not even a year since re- election) and can only go further down.
The whiff of corruption is growing stronger for the GOP as a whole. 2006 will be a bloodbath come election time
October 28th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
The Up-Or-Down Demand was in response to Democratic filibusters. There was no filibuster in the case of Harriet Miers and so your insinuation of hypocrisy is simply cheap.
And corruption? What on earth are you talking about?
Vote:October 28th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
Pamyla – they’d have given her an up or down vote but she didn’t want one (she knew she’d lose it) so *she withdrew*.
Vote:October 28th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
CNN were suggested L. Scooter Libby the Veeps COS wold be indicted.
I’m sure the Democrats would like his scalp, especially as he’s a hawk.
Vote:October 28th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Fun and Profit on Tradesports
FWIW: Last night there was a bit of a “Rove rally” at TradeSports. Well, “rally” for Sinister Righties – the market odds of a Rove indictment fell to about 45%. Libby was holding tough at around an 80% probability of indictment.
Currently, as of Wednesday morning: the probability of a Rove indictment is at 63%; Libby is at 76%.
OK – folks who want to back my play should SELL the Rove contract, which is headed to zero; profit will be a full $6.30 per contract.
Buy the Libby contract and try to pocket the difference when the contract rises from 76 to 100, for a profit of $3.40 per contract.
And ideas for clever spread trades? Maybe buy two Libbys for each sale of Rove, figuring there is no way that Rove is indicted and Libby walks? Very clever, but we don’t give investment advice here, we just speculate. For educational purposes only, of course.
MORE: Folks who want to mock Rove’s memory will want to be ready for push back on “Arkansas Alzheimer’s”, based on the memoery challenges experienced by Hillary and Bill in less happy times.
It doesn’t have to be this way – people forget, they hedge, and they caveat their testimony, OK?
via http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/better_to_be_wr.html
Vote:October 28th, 2005 at 9:25 pm
I have no idea Peter. This would have to be the least corrupt administration in my memory so pretty much in living memory. The ship of Government is certainly looking strong and Bush of course is a beacon to free men everywhere.
Perhaps one of the greatest Presidents the US has seen certainly an exemplar for the rest of the world to follow.
Vote:October 28th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
Errr….it’s a bit more complex than qualifications Dave.
GWB did this appointment as he would if this was Texas and he was Governor.
It was as if Hulun gave her personal solicitor a judicial guernsey, sort of garden variety patronage in a personal comfort zone.
The Republican base understood better than George that a President’s most important legacy, the one that keeps on giving 20 years on, is his Supreme Court appointments.
Even Regan stuffed that up.
The cry from the base went out that the Republicans better start acting like they have a Senate majority that can deliver judges that are not frustrated politicians.
Vote:Ann Coulter nailed it.
October 28th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
“judges that are not frustrated politicians.”
Many judges are elected in the US so they are already politicians.
Vote:October 28th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
You are wrong…not the US Supreme Court, Federal Appellate Courts, State Supreme or State Appellate Courts…
Vote:Just the relatively local stuff.
October 29th, 2005 at 7:28 am
Tina, Most judges can face election for the State Supreme Courts.
Many years back the Governor of Claifornia picked a close aide as Chief Justice of California , who later lost an election, which is called the Missouri Plan.
But Wikipedia has all the details
of the various states
List of states by method of selection of state supreme court justices
Partisan election
Alabama
Illinois
Louisiana
Mississippi
New Mexico
New York
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
West Virginia
Non-partisan election
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
South Dakota
Washington
Wisconsin
Election by the state legislature
Connecticut
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Vermont
Virginia
Appointment by the Governor
Delaware
Hawaii
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Guam[1]
Northern Mariana Islands
American Samoa[2]
U.S. Virgin Islands
Puerto Rico
Uses the Missouri Plan
Alaska
California
Colorado
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Utah
Wyoming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_supreme_court
Vote:October 29th, 2005 at 8:48 am
Well, maybe Karl Rove wasn’t indicted, but Scooter was – http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/leak.probe/index.html
Vote:October 29th, 2005 at 9:07 am
Making False Statements and Lying to a Grand Jury. Not the same thing as Leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent that some people were so sure was the case.
Vote:October 29th, 2005 at 9:28 am
Ah, but as we know from the Starr investigation into Clinton, obstruction of justice and perjury are tantamount to treason.
Vote:October 29th, 2005 at 9:32 am
Poor bloody Doncs can’t do anything right. They went fishing for a marlin and hooked a pilchard. And they want to run the country?
Vote:October 29th, 2005 at 9:41 am
What planet are you living on Peter? Read the indictment.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
If you read the recitation of events one thing is made very clear: Libby was in communication about what he was doing with all sorts of people at the White House while he was doing it. Remember he doesn’t just work for Cheney, he’s also an assistant to the President.
Vote:October 29th, 2005 at 9:53 am
Philip Adams had Sydney Blumenthal on LNL last Monday (“Republican Tremors”) ranging far and wide over Repobulican travails. Worth listening to.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lnl/
Vote:October 29th, 2005 at 10:23 am
LMD – I have read the indictment. The specific crime that people were alleging was violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. All the indictment specifies is that Scooter lied to the Grand Jury and investigators about what he told three reporters. On planet earth, the two are not the same thing.
Vote:October 29th, 2005 at 10:29 am
LMD:
“Libby was in communication about what he was doing with all sorts of people at the White House while he was doing [leaking information - PHM].”
And this is a major crime in what way? Nobody has been charged with leaking the name.
Vote:October 29th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Ask Bill Clinton about ‘high crimes and misdemenours’, he got impeached for telling lies.
And the Prosecutor still has ‘Mr A’ under investigation.
From page 5 of the indictment:
On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.”
The Intelligence Directorate is where the analysts work, the Operations Directorate which includes the CPD is where the undercover people work. This establishes finally Plame/Wilsons status and revealing her name to a journalist broke the law ‘if a few conditions are met’. The court of public opinion could well take Rove AND Cheney down as well. No wonder Miers was ditched so quickly, both halves of Bushes’ brain are in in dire danger!!
The last unexploded bomb from the illegal invasion a Iraq has gone off under some of those responsible for the war. Are there a few more left ?
Vote:October 29th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Palmyra – the indictment does not establish Valerie Plame’s status. If she was an undercover operative within the past five years then a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act has occured. Despite Fitzgerald indicting Scooter for lying about what had been said, he does not indict Scooter or Official A under the IIP Act. Ergo Plame was not a covert operative nor had she been one within the past five years.
Yes, the fact that Plame worked at the CIA was classified. But I can think of a number of reasons why that might be so without her having been an undercover operative within the past five years.
Just because she works in the Operations Directorate does not mean that she is undercover. The spooks there require inhouse analysts and support personel.
Vote:October 29th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
Lets go to the Fitzgerald Press Conference( as reported by WaPo transcript),
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html
PF:”Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. ”
As far as the world was concerned VP worked at a company Brewster-Jennings, which until later wasnt linked to the CIA, but of course she had been a career CIA employee, having started her training as an undercover officer.
As you so rightly pointed out the IIP has qualifications concerning the agent , the nature of identity, and what the leaker could have known, along with exemptions for the press but the other largely forgotten Espionage ACT does allow prosecution for leaking classified information. This is where Fitzgerald is going.
The only thing that has saved Rove this week is his sudden ‘recovered’ memory this last week, which has muddied the waters. Bush should sack him now, since Rove HAS been identified as one of the leakers, as Bush did since when asked , yes he would sack anybody who did divulge classified information.
As for those who say its no big deal:
back to Fitzgerald:
“FITZGERALD: I believe the obstruction count has a maximum penalty of 10 years. The perjury counts and the false statements counts each have a maximum penalty of five years.
FITZGERALD: So there’s four five-year counts and one 10-year count.”
Sounds like a very big deal to me and Im not the one looking at jail time in a US Federal Prison
Vote:October 29th, 2005 at 7:37 pm
Palmya – Saying that she was a CIA Officer does not make her a covert operative. If she had been within the past five years, Fitzgerald could have indicted people under the IIP Act. Since he didn’t, she wasn’t a covert operative whether you like it or not.
“As you so rightly pointed out the IIP has qualifications concerning the agent , the nature of identity, and what the leaker could have known, along with exemptions for the press”
For the IIP Act to apply she has to be a covert operative within the past five years. This does not apply and there is NO exemption for the press. There is also the qualification that the leaker must know the information is classified which Fitzgerald says is true for Scooter.
“but the other largely forgotten Espionage ACT does allow prosecution for leaking classified information.”
And that act makes the person receiving the information a criminal. So if Fitzgerald were to pursue indictments under the Espionage Act, he would not only have to indict Scooter but also Tim Russert, Matt Cooper, Judith Miller, Novak etc etc.
“This is where Fitzgerald is going.”
I think Fitzgerald has more brains that you give him credit for.
“The only thing that has saved Rove this week is his sudden ‘recovered’ memory this last week, which has muddied the waters.”
Wrong. Rove wanted to testify as far back as July. Fitzgerald wouldn’t let him do so until he had heard from Judith Miller.
“Bush should sack him now, since Rove HAS been identified as one of the leakers, as Bush did since when asked , yes he would sack anybody who did divulge classified information.”
That was an affirmation of a journalist’s subtle rephrasing of his position and he has publicly stated before and after that his position is that he would sack people if a crime was committed.
I should point out once again that there was nothing morally wrong with outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent as it was a highly relevant fact that the public needed to know in order to assess Joe Wilson’s allegations at the time.
As matters stand, you want people sacked for trying to refute allegations from somebody who was lying through his teeth.
Vote:October 29th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
Palmyra:
::As for those who say its no big deal:
::back to Fitzgerald:
“FITZGERALD: I believe the obstruction count has a maximum penalty of 10 years.”
But the sentencing guildlines describe it as a level 14 base offense and mandate a sentence of 15 to 21 months. They can only increase the sentence if the Jury finds aggravating factors.
Vote:October 29th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
Fitzgerald says Plame’s job status was classified, which you claim applies to everybody at the CIA, but its OK since its morally justified to lie through your teeth during a criminal investgation facing 10 years jail for your offences since some guy said something untrue in the NY Times ?
Vote:Could you produce the quote where Wilson lied but not that that matters as Fitzgerald has shown Cheney started the whispering against Plame before Wilson went public. And of course Bush , Cheney , Blair, etc were totally right about Saddams WMD so they have the moral high ground
October 29th, 2005 at 9:49 pm
Palmyra:
Fitzgerald says Plame’s job status was classified, which you claim applies to everybody at the CIA
Since I’ve never claimed such a thing, you can quit lying now. What I have repeatedly pointed out is that there is a difference between being a covert operative and being a person whose employment status is classifed.
its OK since its morally justified to lie through your teeth during a criminal investgation facing 10 years jail for your offences since some guy said something untrue in the NY Times
It is not mortally justified to lie through your teeth in a criminal investigation. What I did say was morally justified was the revelation of Plame’s employment at the CIA. And I note your irregular phrases – Libby is lying through his teeth while Joe Wilson merely says something untrue.
Could you produce the quote where Wilson lied
Wilson made three lies: 1) That he found nothing to support the allegation that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Africa. 2) That his wife had nothing to do with getting him the mission. 3) That he disproved the forged documents. All these claims were investigated by the Senate Subcommittee on Intelligence and published well over a year ago in their report.
This is the SSCI report on what Joe Wilson found in Niger (p43)
Mayaki [The Nigerien Prime Minister] said that in June 1999 [REDACTED TEXT] Businessman approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that, “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq.”
[...]
[p46] The CIA’s DO gave the former ambassador’s information a greade of “good”, which means that it added to the IC’s body of understanding on the issue, [REDACTED TEXT] [...] [The reports officer] said he judged the most important fact was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had travelled there in 1999 and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provide some confirmation of the foreign government service reporting.
This is the SSCI report on the second claim at p49:
[...] however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told the committee that the former ambassador’s wife “offered up his name” and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, “my husband has good realtions with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mins (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity”.
This is the SSCI report on Joe Wilson’s claim to have debunked the documents (SSCI report at p45):
“The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article (“CIA Ddid Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,” June 12, 2003) which said, “among the Envoy’s conclusions that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong’”. Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said he may have “mispoken” to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were “forged”. He also said he may have been confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) reported in May 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself”
These are rather damning whoppers that call severely into question Joe Wilson’s credibility.
Palmyra again:
but not that that matters as Fitzgerald has shown Cheney started the whispering against Plame before Wilson went public.
You are confused between Wilson actually naming himself and writing about his trip to Niger and Wilson speaking as a source to the NY Times. He had done so in May, which prompted the White House to find out what was going on.
Vote:October 30th, 2005 at 12:15 am
This is just the first big move – the chess equivalent of capturing a knight. Do you think Fitzgerald worked his ass off for two years just to catch “Scooter” on a few false statements? What we are seeing is a classic prosecutorial assault on a crime syndicate.
All roads lead to Cheney. Woo hoo.
Vote:October 30th, 2005 at 12:46 am
Jimmy
Fitzgerald had enough evidence to indict Libby over a year ago. If this was the equivalent of capturing a knight then he’s doen the equivalent of doing forty chess moves without a single capture. Given that the Grand Jury has expired, he’s going to have to wait another forty moves for another caputre even if its only a pawn.
And what crime is Cheney supposed to have committed?
Vote:October 30th, 2005 at 8:45 am
The short answre to that Peter is what crime hasn’t he committed. I’ll leave that one to the tens of thousands dead Iraqis who’s lives have ben lost. A few thousand Americans may well feel the same way.
Vote:October 30th, 2005 at 11:30 am
Jimmy:
When asked what crime Cheney has committed:
The short answre to that Peter is what crime hasn’t he committed.
In other words, you can’t answer the question because you haven’t got a clue.
I’ll leave that one to the tens of thousands dead Iraqis who’s lives have ben lost. A few thousand Americans may well feel the same way.
The dead Iraqis were mostly killed by Saddam Hussein’s regime and the insurgents. Most of the dead Iraqis that the Americans killed were hostile combatants. No crime has been committed whether you like it or not.
Vote:October 30th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
So you are a pedant minus a sense of humour Peter. History will judge Cheney’s crimes. To say all those killed in Iraq have been hostile combatents is bullshit and you know it.
Vote:October 30th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Jimmy, don’t talk this guy out of flailing around. We’re all going to find out in the next few months and it’ll be fun to read back the desperate attempts to salvage dignity from what is shaping up to be long turn in the stocks for the hawk establishment.
Really good stuff. Nice to hear people trying to talk down lying to federal agents and grand juries like they’re just parking offences. Interesting to speculate about what they’re prepared to risk 30 years in jail for, when they eventually squeal. Fun to hear in court all of the evidence that has been cooked up to justify Nuremberg’s ‘high crime’, and how unimportant Plame’s job was that it was worth blowing wide open.
Chickenhawks coming home to roost, it seems. Even the National Guard currently posted in Iraq rather than New Orleans will be amused about what’s coming their favourite draft dodger’s way.
Vote:October 30th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
Jimmy:
So you are a pedant minus a sense of humour Peter.
I have a sense of humour but I have failed to notice any in your posts. Perhaps you are not as funny as you think you are?
As for pedantry, I can only say that if taking care to get one’s facts right is pedantry as opposed to sprouting ignorant rubbish as you do, then I am quite happy to be called a pedant.
History will judge Cheney’s crimes.
Which crimes would these be? Oh, I forgot. You were unable to provide any and resorted to a smart-alecy reply that you now imply was a joke. I can only say that your understanding of the issues to date has been a joke and a rather poor one at that.
To say all those killed in Iraq have been hostile combatents is bullshit and you know it.
If I had ever made such a claim, you might have a point. But given that your reading comprehension is so poor that you are unable to correctly parse sentences containing a) multiple clauses, b) multiple syllables and/or c) the last twenty letters of the alphabet, it is little wonder that you have grossly misread what I wrote.
Vote:October 30th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
Ben Wilson:
Don’t talk this guy out of flailing around.
A wise policy given that I wasn’t flailing about.
We’re all going to find out in the next few months
You might learn how to write clear sentences. We are all going to find out WHAT? A cure for the posters with little brain?
and it’ll be fun to read back the desperate attempts to salvage dignity from what is shaping up to be long turn in the stocks for the hawk establishment.
What desperate attempts are you talking about? Thus far it seems to be just as delusionary as your belief that the hawks are due for the stocks.
Nice to hear people trying to talk down lying to federal agents and grand juries like they’re just parking offences.
So you are hearing arguments that were never made. Have you seen a doctor lately?
Interesting to speculate about what they’re prepared to risk 30 years in jail for, when they eventually squeal.
What crime are you talking about? Obstruction of justice only has a ten year jail term and the base penalty for the offence is 15 to 21 months. If Fitzgerald has issued a indictment for more serious crimes, it does not appear to have made the news on planet Earth.
Fun to hear in court all of the evidence that has been cooked up to justify Nuremberg’s ‘high crime’,
What court would this be? No court hearing has been held and no evidence has been presented that evidence was cooked up. You really should see that doctor.
and how unimportant Plame’s job was that it was worth blowing wide open.
Nobody blew Plame’s job wide open as she still works there. What was blown was her employment status at the CIA.
Chickenhawks coming home to roost, it seems.
More hallucinations.
Even the National Guard currently posted in Iraq rather than New Orleans will be amused about what’s coming their favourite draft dodger’s way.
If this is a reference to George Bush then you are wrong in describing him as a draft dodger.
Vote:October 30th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Keep it up Pete, you might get to be press secretary for your very own crooked cabal one day. Why you think I’d go clarifying any of my gloating opinions to someone with their head stuck so far under the sand, I don’t know, but keep it’s kinda fun, given that the truth will out very soon. I’d love to hear you taking your incredulousness to a new level. As it stands you’re just a newbie in the denial game.
My only comment to you is ‘flame on’. It’s all you’ve got left.
Vote:October 30th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Ben Wilson:
Keep it up Pete, you might get to be press secretary for your very own crooked cabal one day. Why you think I’d go clarifying any of my gloating opinions to someone with their head stuck so far under the sand,
I think it’s because you can’t clarify your gloats to intelligent people because they are so devoid of anything approaching facts and reasoned analysis.
I don’t know, but keep it’s kinda fun, given that the truth will out very soon.
If you don’t know the truth (considering that you can’t explain it even if your life depended on it), how do you know it will support you?
I’d love to hear you taking your incredulousness to a new level. As it stands you’re just a newbie in the denial game.
I bow to your obvious experience in denial.
My only comment to you is ‘flame on’. It’s all you’ve got left.
Yes, it is quite sad that you prove immune to challenges to explain yourself amongst other attempts at reasoned debate. You have failed to explain you hallucinations including what court case you were talking about and who it was that compared Libby’s indictment to a parking offense. I’ll be charitable and presume that you were terminally confused rather than rather lying like a snake in the grass.
Vote:October 30th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Frank Rich as always nails it.
http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/003081.php#003081
Vote:October 30th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
It’s worth bearing in mind that this guy has been indicted, not convicted . . .
Vote:October 30th, 2005 at 10:17 pm
If it looked like I wanted a reasoned debate, I apologize. I’m merely gloating that finally some real wankers are getting some, and I eagerly await more to come. You know exactly what I mean, what I’m alluding to, and your attempts to get specific only make that clearer. I’m enjoying being cryptic because it seems to piss you off, and that’s fun particularly since you seem to be going out of your way to excuse and trivialize what is already a mighty big scandal. Why don’t you just get right down on your knees for them, huh? There’s some vacancies coming up, I’m sure.
Vote:October 30th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
Ben Wilson:
I’m merely gloating that finally some real wankers are getting some,
The last time I looked, Scooter was only one person. Who else are you talking about?
and I eagerly await more to come. You know exactly what I mean, what I’m alluding to, and your attempts to get specific only make that clearer.
No, I’m just pointing out the gaping disparity between your gloats and the facts.
I’m enjoying being cryptic because it seems to piss you off,
You are not being cryptic – you are simply being idiotic with the sad delusion that you are being clever.
and that’s fun particularly since you seem to be going out of your way to excuse and trivialize
More of your dementia. I’m excusing and trivializing nothing but simply pointing out facts. If you can’t handle such simple concepts then perhaps you should get someone in to look after you.
what is already a mighty big scandal.
A mighty big scandal? The original offense alleged was outing the name of a CIA officer. The watergate burglars were indicted and sent down almost immediately yet Fitzgerald has only indicted one person after two years of investigation and that was for lying to the investigators. It’s clear that nothing criminal took place in the circumstances that led up to the investigation as all the scuttlebut about Rove going down centers on what he said to investigators than what he originally did.
Vote:October 30th, 2005 at 11:12 pm
You seem to be privy to the proceedings of the grand jury. Interesting, I wonder why you’re bothering with small fry like me.
Or is it that you are full of guesswork too, but are struggling to find anything good about senior officials of your favourite bunch of warmongers finally getting indicted on charges that could send them to prison for a long time.
And you’re bothering with the small fry because you’ve got a lump in your throat and a sinking feeling in the gut? It’s going to get worse.
But enough of the cheap personal attacks you’re so fond of, they’re a sign of our mutual personal insecurity, I’m sure. Perhaps we were weened too young.
If you seriously think that this investigation is just going to end now and one little fall-guy will eat his severance prison term, you got another think coming, or I can’t smell a dirty rat when I hear he repeatedly lied to a grand jury.
This outing is the tip of the iceberg. It is, after all, a trivial matter, which is only important because it is technically illegal. So many other shitty things this gang has done outweigh it by many orders of magnitude, but they are political matters, so the thousands of deaths involved don’t really count for quite as much as some agent’s cover getting blown, except in the court of public opinion.
But falling on the sword is something I just can’t see fitting the profile of anyone in the PNAC clique. The whole purpose (opinion here, do don’t go whining to mummy that I haven’t given a string of URLs for you to read) of squeezing Libby by the balls is to get him to squeal. And he will squeal like a stuck pig. It’s about the only good thing I can say about plea bargaining. It does sometimes lead to larger fry.
But do go on, I’m actually enjoying this for the first time since bombs started raining down on Bagdad children. Perhaps you want to say Al Capone only got done for tax evasion too? That’s no biggie, every contractor does it. And Nixon never got impeached, he resigned. And Clinton never had sex with his mullet, she was just smoking his pink cigars.
C’mon, bring it. The abuse is the best part.
Vote:October 31st, 2005 at 12:34 am
Ben Wilson:
You seem to be privy to the proceedings of the grand jury.
Whatever gave you that impression? I’m simply reporting what’s a matter of public record. You are the person that keeps gloating that lots and lots of people are going to go down and for your statements to have any credibility, you would have to be privvy to the proceedings.
Interesting, I wonder why you’re bothering with small fry like me.
I wouldn’t assess your intelligence that badly. I would merely describe you as decomposing fry.
Or is it that you are full of guesswork too, but are struggling to find anything good about senior officials of your favourite bunch of warmongers finally getting indicted on charges that could send them to prison for a long time.
Only one official has been indicted the last time I looked and the Grand Jury’s term has expired. Given that the only indictment relates to events during the investigation, the obvious conclusion is that no crime has been committed in the circumstances leading up to the investigation whether you like it or not.
But enough of the cheap personal attacks you’re so fond of
You shouldn’t talk about yourself in the second person.
they’re a sign of our mutual personal insecurity, I’m sure. Perhaps we were weened too young.
We? You have multiple personalities?
If you seriously think that this investigation is just going to end now and one little fall-guy will eat his severance prison term,
Make up your mind about Scooter. First he was “some real wanker” and now he’s “a little fall guy”.
you got another think coming, or I can’t smell a dirty rat when I hear he repeatedly lied to a grand jury.
So you think Karl repeatedly lied to the grand jury? Are you privy to the proceedings of the jury then?
The whole purpose (opinion here, do don’t go whining to mummy that I haven’t given a string of URLs for you to read) of squeezing Libby by the balls is to get him to squeal. And he will squeal like a stuck pig.
Wow. Not only are you claiming to know what the Grand Jury heard but you are also stating with certainty what Libby will do. I do find it strange that for all your sneers about me having my head in the sand, you have been making statements out of contact with reality. For the benefit of future generations, I advise you to get a vasectomy.
Vote:October 31st, 2005 at 10:33 am
Yawn. This thread got boring quick.
What gave me the impression you are acting like you’ve got inside information on this case. Um, things like:
‘It’s clear that nothing criminal took place in the circumstances that led up to the investigation’
Nothing could be less clear at the moment, when we find that key figures in the investigation lied repeatedly under oath.
I have made my mind up about Scooter. He is both a real wanker and a little fall guy. What I don’t know for sure is what he’ll do now, but my bet is on squealing. Despite your attempts to talk this down, he is facing charges that could give him up to 30 years in prison. I don’t think he’ll get that, but even a few years is more than a man of his stature and age would probably like to spend after a lifetime of servitude to neocons.
Unless there’s nothing to squeal about, but I figure if there’s something to lie about there’s something to squeal about. You don’t lie to a Grand Jury for the fun of it.
Your attempts to divert the thrust of my points fools only yourself. I was not talking about Rove. I would not be at all surprised if he lied his arse off, but I’ll wait for the indictments and squealing before I comment on him.
And even if only Cheney’s Cheney gets fingered this whole sorry mess is going to become bigger and bigger news with more and more factual evidence and less spin every day. It’s a big scandal already, which is why you’re devoting yourself to line by line damage control in a way that would make Rove proud if he ever heard of you.
I’m not stating anything with certainty, I’m betting and gloating.
As for the cheap personal attacks, I guess you’ve already forgotten saying:
‘You might learn how to write clear sentences’
‘A cure for the posters with little brain?’
‘Have you seen a doctor lately?’
‘You really should see that doctor’
‘I’ll be charitable and presume that you were terminally confused rather than rather lying like a snake in the grass’
‘you are simply being idiotic with the sad delusion that you are being clever’
‘More of your dementia’
‘perhaps you should get someone in to look after you’
‘you can’t explain it even if your life depended on it’
‘I would merely describe you as decomposing fry.’
‘We? You have multiple personalities?’
‘For the benefit of future generations, I advise you to get a vasectomy’
…in this thread alone. All going straight to your self proclaimed point of having reason and sanity and the facts on your side. Big point scorers, all of them. Keep it up. It’s really hurting….
Vote:October 31st, 2005 at 11:46 am
Ben Wilson:
Yawn. This thread got boring quick.
After earlier saying that it was “kinda fun” and the “best part was the abuse”? You have great difficulty is picking a coherent position and sticking with it.
What gave me the impression you are acting like you’ve got inside information on this case. Um, things like: ‘It’s clear that nothing criminal took place in the circumstances that led up to the investigation’
And I based that statement on the indictment which is a matter of public record. What part of that did you not understand?
Nothing could be less clear at the moment, when we find that key figures in the investigation lied repeatedly under oath.
You and your multiple personalities have found no such thing. Only one person is said to have lied repeatedly under oath.
I have made my mind up about Scooter. He is both a real wanker and a little fall guy.
When George Orwell wrote about doublethink, he had people like you in mind.
Despite your attempts to talk this down, he is facing charges that could give him up to 30 years in prison. I don’t think he’ll get that,
What a moronic hypocrite. I did not talk this down but simply pointed out that the sentencing guidelines require a sentence of 15 to 21 months for a base offense. Now you have just pointed out the maximum offence and concede that he won’t get that. So why am I talking down the crime and you are not?
Your attempts to divert the thrust of my points fools only yourself. I was not talking about Rove.
Then who were you talking about then? Put up or shut up. Your sentence was phrased in such a way that Scooter was not intended. If you actually did mean Scooter you should learn how to write for communication and not just to fellate your sad ego.
I’m not stating anything with certainty
Whoops. You’ve just told a lie there.
As for the cheap personal attacks, I guess you’ve already forgotten saying:
I haven’t forgotten them. They are statements of fact (eg ‘More of your dementia’), negative injunctions to lift your debating style (eg ‘You might learn how to write clear sentences’) and/or sharp responses to your unthinking rhetoric (eg ‘We? You have multiple personalities?’). If you don’t like being the recipient of these remarks then the fault is yours for your juvenile posting style.
All going straight to your self proclaimed point of having reason and sanity and the facts on your side.
That I have made the remarks does not disprove me not having facts on my side. If you had the faintest acquaintance with logic, you would have known this.
Vote:October 31st, 2005 at 12:17 pm
It was interesting, but it got boring when you started repeating yourself and reusing abuse points.
I don’t mind being the recipient of your incisive wit, but it’s sadly dropped below the radar of being worth the time now, having finally gone into full personal attack mode. I imagine it’s a juvenile attempt at a troll, but it just won’t work. You might note that my juvenile trolling style has drawn out some pretty bitter remarks from your court though…I’m expecting tears and swearwords next. Go on, others have already opened up their tastiest oaths, why deny yourself?
Vote:October 31st, 2005 at 12:31 pm
It was interesting, but it got boring when you started repeating yourself and reusing abuse points.
What abuse points have I been reusing? As for being repetitive, you have been being saying the same thing over and over and over again. You don’t even bother to respond constructively to the points that I have made but sneer, gloat and otherwise soil yourself intellectually.
but it’s sadly dropped below the radar of being worth the time now, having finally gone into full personal attack mode.
As opposed to you never posting anything factual in all your posts. Oh, I forgot. You can spell Scooter and Rove correctly.
You might note that my juvenile trolling style has drawn out some pretty bitter remarks from your court though…
What bitter remarks would these be? The only person responding to your posts in this thread is me.
Vote:October 31st, 2005 at 12:50 pm
What abuse points? I think there was a list 2 posts ago, but it’s longer now.
My posts have contained many facts, but overall the gloating is an opinion piece, despite you trying to make a court case out of it.
On bitter remarks you might apply a little logic to see that you are are in your court, that’s just a little definitional thing. The rest of your court are echoing your glut of denial on other threads, with similar levels of histrionics and cheap unsubstantiated personal attacks. Perhaps you might like to also bring my mother into it?
My only psychoanalysis of you is that your bitterness is evident from the intentness that you are following up everything I say. And the hole just gets deeper as you follow up with…..
Vote:October 31st, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Ben Wilson:
What abuse points? I think there was a list 2 posts ago, but it’s longer now
Nice distortion. I didn’t ask for for a list of abuse points but for a list of abuse points that I have been reusing. If your list is longer now, it follows that your claim of reusing abuse points is simply a lie.
My posts have contained many facts
Whoops. There goes another lie.
On bitter remarks you might apply a little logic to see that you are are in your court, that’s just a little definitional thing.
It’s a highly nonstandard use of the english language on par with deranged ramblings overheard in a lunatic asylum.
The rest of your court are echoing your glut of denial on other threads
And these people and threads are? I only see one other person in one other thread calling you a name as well as a rebuke by DPF about your inventing things that other people say. Where is this alleged denial?
Perhaps you might like to also bring my mother into it?
I didn’t know you had one.
Vote:October 31st, 2005 at 2:36 pm
….next!
Vote:October 31st, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Bitch, you just got schooled, bitch.
Vote:October 31st, 2005 at 8:01 pm
Does kind of remind me of school. Primary, I think, was where persistence trumped reason, and rudeness was wit.
Vote:November 1st, 2005 at 2:59 pm
You havent presented one reasoned argument and, contrary to what your mum must be telling you, you are not witty.
Vote:November 1st, 2005 at 7:03 pm
But ‘Bitch, you just got schooled, bitch’ is both witty and a reasoned argument. I bet your mum didn’t tell you that one. Was it something you heard dad say?
Vote: