Which one are you?

[shin]

I picked the first one. I would prefer to pick "indicted" and be the centrist, which would be my pick in any other administration, but since the one we have is so corrupt, I'll take any excuse I can get to get rid of these guys.

[shin]

Shit I should have made this into a poll, shouldn't I?

[Nepenthe]

What I find hilarious about this entire thing is Joe Wilson's lecture he gave at EPIC 2 weeks before his New York Times article. Pretty damn interesting and pretty damn pathetic.

[Nepenthe]

The words of a psychopath


www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=68

Scroll down to the very bottom and listen to Mr. Wilson speak about the nuclear weapons that Iraq had but have been "toted off" hidden away somewhere.

Listen to him rant about the real reason we went to war is to re-map the middle east so that Israel can do whatever they want to the Palestinians.

[Dr. Drum]

Well, I think you guys really need an Orange Revolution down there at this point but that said, in any ordinary situation I’d say that once there are serious allegations of misconduct against a government official in the performance of their duties, it is appropriate that they resign (or are fired if necessary).

Recent examples – UK pensions minister David Blunkett who resigned for clearly breaking ministerial conflict of interest guidelines; Canadian immigration minister Judy Sgro who resigned when an asylum seeker made charges that she offered to help him stay in Canada in exchange for free pizza for her election campaign workers (I am not kidding. The investigation into the charges completely exonerated her, btw, though she was not returned to cabinet.); Ontario finance minister Greg Sorbara who resigned when he was named in a RCMP fraud investigation.

[kmc]

That's right, Tuatha. Joe Wilson's possible corruption should exhonerate the Bush administration of any charges, right?

Please. It's like the comeback that Clinton was no better than Bush. What does one thing have to do with another anyway? What, are the charges against Libby erroneous because Wilson is a jackass? Does that even correlate?

[Nepenthe]

kmc said:

"As this case proceeds, Valerie and I are confident that justice will be done. In the meantime, I have a request. While I may engage in public discourse, my wife and my family are private people. They did not choose to be brought into the public square, and they do not wish to be under the glare of camera. They are entitled to their privacy."

[rockysigman]

nymphofantasia said:

kmc said:

"As this case proceeds, Valerie and I are confident that justice will be done. In the meantime, I have a request. While I may engage in public discourse, my wife and my family are private people. They did not choose to be brought into the public square, and they do not wish to be under the glare of camera. They are entitled to their privacy."





Isn't that basically the same respect the Bushes asked for for their daughters? It wasn't allowed for Jenna and Barbara. Why shoudl it be extended to others? And where was Joe to speak out in protecting the Bush twins?

Why should he have spoken out about the Bush twins? He's obligated to do so only to the extend that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WORLD who asks for privacy is obligated to do so.

Again, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the CIA leak. Joe Wilson could be the biggest piece of shit the world has ever seen, but that wouldn't make leaking his wife's identity as a CIA operative any more or less legal. You're talking about completely unrelated things.

[Nepenthe]

I don't know, I didn't write that. Chris has edited my post.

Yes Joe Wilson is a piece of shit, and that Vanity Fair spread, along with that quote pretty much sums it all up.

I really don't think the whole deal is going to fly. The law needs to be rewritten. The way it looks now, Valerie was not covert and hadn't been since the late 90's.

[chrisfan]

Oh shoot! I'm sorry Trutha!!!! I hit the damn edit button instead of the quote button again. It's really time for me to stop multi-tasking. I don't do it well.

Rocky - I think there are two different issues here. One is whether or not there was an illegal leak and whether it was right or not. The other is Joe Wilson's credibility. If there was an illegal leak, it was wrong. No question about that. Joe Wilson's repeated harping on it, IMO, is a different thing. It does not weaken the issue of the leak, but it weakens his credibility in his outrage over it.

Wilson has spoken out repeatedly and dramatically about the danger his wife and othres at the CIA were put in, in his view, by what he believes to be the leak. If that is so, is he not compounding the danger when he repeatedly talks about it? Was he not creating danger himself introducing her as his CIA Wife? Listing her in his Who's Who profile?

Confidential information is one thing - grave danger is another. IF Official A is guilty of putting Plame and others in danger rather than possibly breaking the law, then it seems to me that Wilson is guilty of the same. OR, he's overexaggerating the offense for personal gain.

[Nepenthe]

Not too mention, this was in my post but must have gotten edited out by accident, her name is right there listed on the EPIC website in Joe Wilson's bio. So how much of a secret was it?

For some reason that site is not working for me today, but I did listen to Joe Wilson's lecture and it is blatantly obvious what his intentions were, this lecture was given about 2 weeks prior to his New York Times piece. He is a liar, period. His sole purpose was to bring about quote: "change in our country" and for a hopeful quote: "downfall of Tony Blair's government"

He was also very concerned about the Gold in Iraq.....hhmm

Also the part when he is speaking in the 3rd person about himself and the article he was about to do for the NY Times "This story has legs.......if the media picks it up that would be great" for the cause....

[Nepenthe]

But the most interesting part is when he says that he is convinced Iraq had nuclear weapons, he said it would make perfect sense. The reason we have not found them is because we didn't secure the area and they were "toted off" somewhere.

[Nepenthe]

Gotta love it!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Nepenthe]

HAH!! HOLY SHIT!!! EPIC has removed Joe Wilson's picture, bio, and lecture off of their website!!! Either that or there are tons of people visiting it.

[rockysigman]

Chrisfan, again, I don't understand what Joe Wilson's credibility or outrage has to do with anything. Why does he need credibility on this issue? His public statements are unrelated to what the prosecutors are looking for in their investigations. Why do you care if his outrage is sincere? None of it has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not a serious crime was committed here.