Posted on 10/30/2005 9:25:14 PM PST by smoothsailing
BTTT
EXACTLY what I was thinking.
Wasn't clear to Fitzgerald apparently.
Therein lies the problem.
We need a spokesman from the administration to set the record straight.
This is a very good point.
The only way Libby can be charged with lying to the Grand Jury is the fact that he did learn (earlier than he said to the GJ) that Valerie Wilson did, in fact, suggest sending Joe Wilson on the trip to Niger.
The facts of the charges themselves imply Wilson is lying to this day about his wife's role.
This is a basic fact that the media cannot ignore any longer. 60 Minutes conviently left this out last night for example.
My thinking is, how in the world did a person like this ever become an Ambassador to anything? Even in a Clinton
administration.
Great Story!
The media will never even acknowledge that Wilson is not truthful. They ignore the 9/11 Commission Report when it's convenient and drag it out as gospel when it fits their agenda for Bush bashing.
liberallarry doesn't seem to be disruptive, so the question is, are his points valid? If yes, then we should pay attention. If not, then he provides good points to consider how they can be countered.
True, the words quoted from the memo Plame wrote could be interpreted as response to questions asked about her husband. But that assumes someone asked those questions. But you stripped the "offered up his name" quote from context. Here's where it belongs:
Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, 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 Committee staff that the former ambassadors wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12,2002, from the former ambassadors wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."
Are you saying the CPD reports officer was lying when he said she "offered up his name"? Or are you saying he didn't really know, but thought she might have and assumed she did? By associating "offered up his name" with the memo, you are implying that the CPD reports officer merely read the memo and reported his interpretation of the memo to the committee knowing no other facts. That's your biased opinion, not shared by any reasonably objective reader.
No, he's not objective, he's a liar like Wilson, maybe not quite as bad.
NBC gave his position fifteen minutes and the truth, three.
Post of the day!
Sorry if it seemed that used the phrase "offered up his name" out of context. I had seen the phrase before in a different context and should have explained that.
Where the HELL is the CIA Officer??? Where the hell is NOVAK??? Why don't they come out and expose this fraud????
Nobody's objective, only relatively so. Making accusations about lying when - in my case at least - you're faced with differing perceptions and understandings only demeans you.
Why the hell wasn't Valerie called to the Grand Jury??? I think maybe the CIA wouldn't let her? If that's the case theycan lie all day long and NEVER be held accountable.
he was all over CBS and NBC tonight just lyin his aging A$$ off!!! And I'm sure they are eating it up. I guarantee there won't be any rebuttal to his lies either. That would take "courage" to put on both sides.
And when is Clinton FBI head Freeh going to be on anywhere?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.