|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Proof is proof, and it may never be proved any more than to a "he said, she said" extent.
But is Libby the mastermind behind the administration?
Is he going around talking to reporters about undercover agents without getting marching orders from above?
So it may never be 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt' what we all know:
Libby has decided he's going to sing rather than get hung out to dry as the fall guy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Libby presents is a high-level allegation, an allegation that was not subjected to cross-examination. It still comes down his word against the President's.
|
Think they'll call the president to testify in front of the grand jury too?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This article may have already been posted in one of the too numerous threads on impeach/don't impeach Bush, but I thought this one has some good ghosts of leaks past in it:
| Quote: |
Bush has repeatedly implied that he knew nothing about the CIA leaks. He once threatened to fire anyone who who was involved and later said they'd be fired if they committed a crime.
He's also denounced the practice generally on several occasions.
"There's just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush said Sept. 30, 2003.
The White House has even launched criminal investigations of leaks, including one into who told the New York Times that Bush created a secret domestic spy program that doesn't require warrants. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, you were clear.
Perhaps it was I who wasn't clear:
I don't really care about the legality of the issue (I don't expect to see Bush impeached anyway, though I'd like to, but to be honest I don't really know what the legal requirements are to start the impeachment process), but I do believe that at this point it has been 'proven'- but not in the legal sense, as I have said, but in the common sense and logic sense- that Cheney & Bush had to have been aware and approved (if only through inaction) and this is the kindest, 'best case' scenario; a less kinder one being that Libby had specific instructions.
You and EFL Trainer or whoever else is involved can debate the finer legal points; I'm satisfied that Bush is- at the very least- guilty of breaking his past promises and warnings regarding threats.
Last edited by Bulsajo on Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I doubt that there were any specific instructions. They knew each other, they knew politics, no specific instructions were needed.
"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So what do you forsee?
Libby getting screwed and Bush and Cheny managing to ride out their second terms and slink away with bags of loot at the end?
It would be nice to see them get their just desserts, but the real world doesn't always work the way we want it to, or believe it should. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
I doubt that there were any specific instructions. They knew each other, they knew politics, no specific instructions were needed.
"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" |
Sooo... you can make assumptions and presume and it's all OK, but when I do... I'm a nutcase?
Hypocrite.
You're not paying attention to how Dumbya had been doing business. I'd be very surprised if it hadn't been stated directly. They'd have been sure they were in a secure location, perhaps, but Bush has not been shy about stating what he wants. Witness the Downing Street memos, admitting to illegal activities directly to the world, etc. The man does not appear to care what others think and to believe himself untouchable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
So what do you forsee? Libby [becoming the scapegoat] and Bush and Cheney managing to [complete] their second terms?
It would be nice to see them [receive disciplinary action of some sort], but [this may not be practical for any number of reasons]. |
I'd rather say what you said with these words. And if that is what you meant, without the "slithering" and "loot" references, for example, then I would totally agree with you -- accept Libby is demonstrating that he will not be Ollie North, and he will not go to jail or accept a conviction over this.
I think there has been wrongdoing by this Adminstration; it has probably crossed several lines.
I also think the entire problem has been blown way out of proportion by bitter partisans like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, and I wonder how egregious the W. Bush Administration's behavior really has been.
I remember, as well, the same level of bitterness coming from those on the right who referred to "Billary" in the 1990s, with the same malicious intent we see when people refer to the current president as "Dumbya" -- and I am sure we can agree that the Clinton Administration was never as egregious as it was made out to be by its critics.
So I'd like this to stop and I'd like our political system to become more rational and less emotional. And if that means that we ought to apply techincal legal standards, esp. on the burden of proof, in our discussions on W. Bush and Cheney, so that we can demand the same standards when we take the White House back, whenever that may be, and if that also means that W. Bush and Cheney might simply complete their term without even being censored, then so be it.
I am convinved, then, that most of what we see is partisan-oriented smoke and mirrors, on all sides, and I, for one, have had enough of it. I do not like how Carter was treated and ridiculed, the Iran-Contra hearings seem to have been justified, but I do not like how Clinton was ruthlessly persecuted, and I do not agree with the hostile and antagonistic treatment W. Bush is now receiving either.
Still, as I've tried to allude to above, the chips have not yet fallen. It looks to me like Libby is attempting to subpoena documents, that he apparently has some specific documents in mind, and we cannot say what might develop once those documents come to light.
And as far as what I would like to see the White House do, I agree with Schumer:
| Schumer wrote: |
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said Bush and Cheney need to "clear the air" about the issue.
"At the very least, President Bush and Vice President Cheney should fully inform the American people of any role in allowing classified information to be leaked," Schumer told reporters. "Did they believe they had the right to do this and, if so, in what circumstances? Or is this just something that may have been done in order to accommodate the president's momentary political needs?" |
As far as Congress, I've already made myself clear on that point. Why not hold hearings and investigate the matter, in a dispassionate and professional way without the hysteria that so far dominates the debate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:49 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Gopher on Wednesday of last week:
| Quote: |
Bottom line: there is insufficient evidence to impeach W. Bush, we are not certain that he has even cleared the threshhold that would call for impeachment, and, in any case, hysteria or not, bitterness or not, temper tantrums or not, you're just going to have to accept him because he isn't going to be impeached.
So deal with it. Or don't. Either way it's the same for me, and for everyone else, for that matter. Because he will serve out the remainder of his term and then retire from office, just like every other president since Nixon. And there is nothing you or the other members of your moron triumverate can do about it. Razz |
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=49754&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105
Gopher today:
| Quote: |
| That being said, I strongly suspect there may be something here -- that is, I think this is potentially an impeachable issue and Congress should investigate it. If the President directed or authorized this, even tacitly, then I would certainly want him to account for himself before Congress. |
'nuff said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Funny how all the squeaking seems to have had an affect.
Squeak!! Squeak!! Squeak!! Squeak!! Squeak!! Squeak!! Squeak!! Squeak!! Squeak!! Squeak!!
Someone want to splain to the occupant of the leaning ivory tower of pizza what the Bell Curve is and how it might apply to public discourse?
Let's see if he can figure it out... I'm betting he needs some hints... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
I'd rather say what you said with these words. And if that is what you meant, without the "slithering" and "loot" references, for example, then I would totally agree with you.
|
I don't know if this is any consolation, but I would say Bill (along with Sandy and Warren) slithered away with a lot of loot and left a boatload of problems for Bush to deal with.
Whether you vote Republican or Democrat, believe Bush should be impeached or not, it's clear that the American system of government is broken, and most Americans are either apathetic or totally clueless.
I guess I'll stop there since that's probably enough ammo for others to call me a raving looney, or an extreme anti-American or something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Gopher on Wednesday of last week:
| Quote: |
Bottom line: there is insufficient evidence to impeach W. Bush, we are not certain that he has even cleared the threshhold that would call for impeachment, and, in any case, hysteria or not, bitterness or not, temper tantrums or not, you're just going to have to accept him because he isn't going to be impeached.
So deal with it. Or don't. Either way it's the same for me, and for everyone else, for that matter. Because he will serve out the remainder of his term and then retire from office, just like every other president since Nixon. And there is nothing you or the other members of your moron triumverate can do about it. Razz |
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=49754&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105
Gopher today:
| Quote: |
| That being said, I strongly suspect there may be something here -- that is, I think this is potentially an impeachable issue and Congress should investigate it. If the President directed or authorized this, even tacitly, then I would certainly want him to account for himself before Congress. |
'nuff said. |
Not quite.
I am satisfied that my position is clear on W. Bush.
And there is no contradiction in the two statements you selected and posted above.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:42 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Not quite.
I am satisfied that my position is clear on W. Bush. |
Interesting. You are at one point quoted as stating that Bush
| Quote: |
| will serve out the remainder of his term and then retire from office, just like every other president since Nixon. |
10 days later, you say
| Quote: |
| I think this is potentially an impeachable issue and Congress should investigate it. |
If you are unable to see the contradiction here, then you are beyond help.
In other threads, you've stated that it's too late to impeach Bush, have you not?
Yet you are clearly clearly considering imeachment a possibilty, are you not?
| Quote: |
You are a bitter person, with a very bitter anti-Bush agenda, and you and your moron brother (and I don't think you are a moron like him, just consumed with bitterness and hatred) have appointed yourselves as my inquisitors on this board. And that is fine.
|
You started out your time on this board by accusing me of stalking you. When you have no answer to questions put plainly to you, you dismiss them with labels and your own niggling, partisan psychoanalysis. When confronted with the fact that you've been wrong (be it about the history of independent counsel investigations or the fact that more than "no one" in Congress support an investigation/impeachment of Bush), you do not acknowledge it. This is weak.
I HAVE admitted at times when I was wrong on this board. I didn't like it, but I did.
| Quote: |
But there is no contradiction in the two statements you selected and posted above.
|
There, very obviously, IS.
| Quote: |
| Keep patting yourselves on the back, though. |
Deal with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
