Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Indicted? For What?
National Review Online ^ | 10/19/05 | Byron York

Posted on 10/19/2005 7:18:17 AM PDT by frankjr

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last
To: leftcoaster

Wilson isn't that smart.


41 posted on 10/19/2005 10:15:51 AM PDT by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Good choice.

My money is still on the table, for you or anyone else who can produce such a quote. I've made such an offer before, but no one has come up with one yet. In this day and age of digitized communications, that leads me to question the claims that he said it.

42 posted on 10/19/2005 10:17:02 AM PDT by lugsoul (Sleeper troll since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
YI suspect you wouldn't know Classic Bike from Mother Jones, let alone the Atlantic.
Someone mentioned that the Clinton Library toilet attendant had signed on FR recently. Guess we know who you are...
43 posted on 10/19/2005 10:22:21 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Troubled by NOLA looting ? You ain't seen nothing yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Rapscallion

"Please don't equivocate. They are trying to make bogus application of various laws to the political play of Washington."

I don't want to be unduly negative. I've said from the beginning I don't believe there was any outing, from a legal point of view.

But it only takes a contradiction while talking to investigators twice about the same thing to be obstruction. Maybe we will get lucky and find out Wilson contradicted himself. But Rove or Libby or Fieth or anybody else could have slipped too.


44 posted on 10/19/2005 10:22:26 AM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
That's a lot of hostility for simply being asked to back up your assertion... I guess you'd just prefer to spout off whatever crap you might've heard somewhere, whether there's any truth to it or not.

Though I guess you've caught me, if by 'recently' you mean six years ago.

45 posted on 10/19/2005 10:44:49 AM PDT by lugsoul (Sleeper troll since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
In this day and age of digitized communications, that leads me to question the claims that he said it

That wouldn't be my conclusion.

You're asking us to find a needle in a haystack.

Odds are, big-mouth Wilson has said quite a lot that has not been transcribed.

I find it odd that he even found it necessary to mention Cheney in the Op-Ed.

46 posted on 10/19/2005 10:56:22 AM PDT by syriacus (Don't look for medical breakthroughs to be accomplished by pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia doctors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
Asking you to find a needle in a haystack? That's hilarious. So, one should be able to CLAIM that another person made a statement and then, when asked to back up the assertion, simply throw up their hands and say 'how do you expect me to find that?'

The guy is on record all over the place. But even the RNC and their team of researchers could not produce a quote of Wilson saying it - not even for their blast fax talking points claiming he said it. If that doesn't tell you anything, you've got your eyes closed.

47 posted on 10/19/2005 11:10:00 AM PDT by lugsoul (Sleeper troll since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
I'm speaking in general terms.

Check the status of Bill/Hillary, Sandy Burglar, Ted Kennedy et al as compared to Nixon, Newt, Packwood and Bennett.

The Republicans mentioned above escaped jail but were completely ruined politically;and, IMO, for offenses that are minor compared to perjury, rape, treason and negligent homicide.

Bill Clinton is still making expensive speeches and appearing on Oprah. Ted Kennedy stands in judgment of judicial nominees, among other things.

Only Mr. Burglar seems to have been tainted by his actions.

48 posted on 10/19/2005 11:23:00 AM PDT by daler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

Like so many worthless libs, its how you define Wilson's actual quote. Sy Hersh and others have repeated what the MSM talking heads have picked up from Wilson's article and Wilson has never taken a moment to clarify their statements about him if they were in error. Parsing words seems to be a Clinton playbook specialty, so I calls em the way I sees em.


49 posted on 10/19/2005 11:39:37 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Troubled by NOLA looting ? You ain't seen nothing yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

As quoted above, the Espionage Act prohibits the disclosure of any "document," "writing," or "note" which is "related to the national defense."

It likewise prohibits disclosure of any "information relating to the national defense."

To focus on the more specific prohibitions of the Act, like disclosing "code books," is probably incorrect under the law and very bad policy. When you read a law, you have to read all of the words. This one clearly prohibits more than just the specific "code book"-type information from being disclosed -- you'd have to ignore the clear language of the statute to conclude only the specifically-named documents can't be shared.

And it seems to me to be extremely bad policy to conclude otherwise. Let's assume a situation where someone like Valerie Plame IS working on classified WMD work for the CIA, undercover. Does anyone really want to say that it's just fine to disclose that person's identity even though the disclosure is merely "information" related to national defense, and not a "code book" related to national defense?


50 posted on 10/19/2005 11:47:46 AM PDT by Vonnegut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
"Wilson has never taken a moment to clarify their statements about him if they were in error"

I've seen him say about 20 times that he does not claim Cheney sent him. Though I'm sure that wouldn't qualify for you as 'taking a moment.'

If you are going to call them the way you see them, you should put on your glasses.

51 posted on 10/19/2005 11:49:06 AM PDT by lugsoul (Sleeper troll since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Vonnegut

Who said "Valerie Plame IS working on classified WMD work for the CIA, undercover"?


52 posted on 10/19/2005 11:52:45 AM PDT by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

If these were democrats, this would never have gotten this far. The libs can't do enough to discredit any conservative/republican. They'll even make up stuff. Disgusting creatures. They must be stopped or stomped..whichever comes first.


53 posted on 10/19/2005 11:56:51 AM PDT by Marysecretary (Thank you, Lord, for FOUR MORE YEARS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

His comments must've been limited to NPR because I heard NBC's political reporter Chris Russert, no friend of the WH, say it on the radio this morning. Again, its a parsing thing. Use your $10 spot to subscribe to a good news magazine. It'll keep you up to date.


54 posted on 10/19/2005 12:02:04 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Troubled by NOLA looting ? You ain't seen nothing yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly
If the witch isn't a member of the Bush Administration, the witch hunters will be outraged.

If no indictments are handed down, I wonder how long it will take for the first thread in DUmmieland entitled, "They got to him!"? The DUmmies have been fawning over Fitzpatrick, talking about how much integrity he has, how he takes his time and gets things right. If he decides not to indict anyone in the Bush admin, I wonder how long it will take for them to turn on him? If that happens, it looks like St. Fitz will have put a lump of coal in each of their stockings for what they are calling "Fitzmas".

55 posted on 10/19/2005 12:07:01 PM PDT by Purrcival (Hang tough, FReepers! Everything will work out just fine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary

I vote for stomping.


56 posted on 10/19/2005 12:09:38 PM PDT by Purrcival (Hang tough, FReepers! Everything will work out just fine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
one should be able to CLAIM that another person made a statement and then,

My claim was that Andrea made a statement. Am I wrong?

Asking you to find a needle in a haystack?

Yep

BTW, Someone should question why Wilson kept repeating Cheney's name, if naming Cheney was not important to Wilson's fable.

Step back a bit.

Bare minimum, Wilson painted Cheney as the instigator of his trip to Niger, so that Wilson could then paint Cheney as someone who was demanding faked intelligence.

Andrea Mitchell said, 2 times, on Hardball that Wilson claimed Cheney sent him. She didn't say that Wilson "wrote" that claim in the notorious op-ed. She says that Wilson "spoke" that claim.

I don't care to get in touch with Andrea to find out which witnesses can corroborate what she says.

But I'll keep an open mind that it's likely that Wilson boastfully implied that Cheney sent him.

57 posted on 10/19/2005 12:16:33 PM PDT by syriacus (Don't look for medical breakthroughs to be accomplished by pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia doctors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Amazing how you keep missing the obvious point. You keep reporting what you have heard REPORTERS SAY - not what WILSON SAYS.

I figured that would be a simple point, but it seems to escape you.

As far as your completely bogus claim about 'parsing' goes, show me a quote that you can parse to mean Wilson says Cheney sent him. I'm not parsing anything. He said straight out to Wolf Blitzer, on live television, last summer that Cheney DID NOT send him and that he wasn't claiming he did. That's not parsing. If you want to rant about parsing, you need to at least refer to a statement to parse.

58 posted on 10/19/2005 12:17:06 PM PDT by lugsoul (Sleeper troll since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
But even the RNC and their team of researchers could not produce a quote of Wilson saying it -

Tell them to talk with Andrea.

59 posted on 10/19/2005 12:19:04 PM PDT by syriacus (Don't look for medical breakthroughs to be accomplished by pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia doctors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: syriacus

Why? She can't do it either. IOW, just because she says he said it, doesn't mean he did - and unless she has notes, quotes, or video, it is just another MSM reporter saying something they heard someone else say.


60 posted on 10/19/2005 12:23:43 PM PDT by lugsoul (Sleeper troll since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson