+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 28

  1. #1
    DeeDee1965 is offline Gold Scams Member User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    OK People,

    Bush did not "authorize" the leak, but Dick Cheney did. Now, what do all the Bush administration supporters have to say. Before you come back with, silly comments about Bush did not lie, or there was faulty intel, read the article and comment on it's contents.

    After the long drawn out non-issue stuff on CV's thread, I thought I would go back to the "leak." Since, according to Grim17, my questions are irrelevant, and not important, I will ask on more: should Dick Cheney resign, since he authorized the leak? Or should the President fire him, since that was his promise?

    DeeDee1965

    Cheney Authorized Leak Of CIA Report, Libby Says

    By Murray Waas, National Journal
    National Journal Group Inc.
    Friday, April 14, 2006

    Vice President Dick Cheney directed his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on July 12, 2003 to leak to the media portions of a then-highly classified CIA report that Cheney hoped would undermine the credibility of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, according to Libby's grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case and sources who have read the classified report.



    Full Story

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    51

    Re: CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    I'm not going to say Bush didn't lie, but I want to know since when is this guy Libby's word the gospel? Is there any chance that he could be lying? Or is it the case that since he's accusing the Bush admin of doing something arguably bad he must be telling the truth?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    After the long drawn out non-issue stuff on CV's thread, I thought I would go back to the "leak." Since, according to Grim17, my questions are irrelevant, and not important, I will ask on more:

    DeeDee, why have you misquoted me and taken my words out of context?

    You said "Since, according to Grim17, my questions are irrelevant, and not important", but that isn't what I said at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    As for DeeDee's comments, that is not the topic of this thread. The topic is over the president authorizing Libby to discuss the contents of the National Intelligence Estimate to a reporter at the NY Times. I will however address her question, but it is really not relevant to this topic
    The key words there were "TO THIS TOPIC" and nowhere did I say your questions weren't important. If you recall, I still responded to your questions twice on that thread, and you show your appreciation by misquoting me and misrepresenting my words?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,088

    Re: CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    Quote Originally Posted by RedFusion
    I'm not going to say Bush didn't lie, but I want to know since when is this guy Libby's word the gospel? Is there any chance that he could be lying? Or is it the case that since he's accusing the Bush admin of doing something arguably bad he must be telling the truth?
    Let's say, hypothetically, that Libby IS lying. If he didn't get the information form Cheney or Bush, how did he get his hands on it? It WAS classified until Bush declassified it, right? - It should have locked away somewhere so no one could get a hold of it, right?

    Seems to me that EITHER WAY, the administration is in deep do-do here... :eek:

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,088

    Re: CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    should Dick Cheney resign, since he authorized the leak? Or should the President fire him, since that was his promise?
    Bush should FIRE Cheney. Allowing him to resign lets him off way too easy, and lets Bush off the hook for what he promised to do if the leaker was caught.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    should Dick Cheney resign, since he authorized the leak? Or should the President fire him, since that was his promise?

    Now to the matter at hand. DeeDee, you need to take a look at other accounts of this story, because this one tries to lead people to the conclusion that the administration has been "Bad... Real bad" and that is seriously misleading and contradicts the truth.

    The new disclosure about the CIA report further raises questions about the vice president's role in directly authorizing the leak of classified information outside the formal declassification process.
    The writer is of course implying that what the VP did was "out of line" or a "Breech" of some sort, when it wasn't anything of the sort. It was legal and not unusual for things to be declassified in this manner.


    The Bush administration has asserted that presidents have the constitutional right to declassify information.
    How about just saying the GD truth, like "Presidents have the constitutional right to declassify information", instead of trying to deceive the readers by implying that only the administration see's it that way.

    Libby has also testified that in July 2003, then-Counsel to the Vice President David Addington "opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amount to a declassification of the document."
    Opined??? That is not just an opinion, it is a FACT! Another blatant attempt to cast doubt on the legality of the release of the intelligence.

    So anyway, I was reading the article and noticed that they were at least directly quoting people and substantiating their sources (although still trying to paint a negative picture of the administration) then I got to this gem:

    The new disclosure also raises the question whether President Bush or his aides knew that Cheney may have been deciding on his own to authorize the leaking of classified information. Senior government officials said that top Bush aides -- including then-deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley and White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett -- were not aware that Cheney had authorized the disclosure of the CIA report on Wilson's Niger mission. These officials raised the possibility that Bush himself was unaware at the time of Cheney's action.
    Funny how this new and startling "Bomb shell" against the administration comes from name-less "Senior government officials", ain't it? After 18 straight paragraphs of naming every source they quoted, they all of the sudden report this damming revelation that "Cheney may have been deciding on his own to authorize the leaking of classified information" without saying who told them this. To top it off, it says "May have been"... They are using un-named sources to attack Cheney on a "Maybe" rumor. lol

    Then there is the next paragraph:

    Regarding the release of Plame's name and CIA employment, a senior administration official said that even if Cheney did not directly authorize Libby to leak the information to the press, the vice president might have set a climate in which his aides viewed it as routine to release classified information whenever it served their purposes.
    Give me a MF'n break here!!!!!!! This is speculative, unsubstantiated, yellow, and oh yes boys and girls, liberal B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T. journalism.

    Here are some more examples of why you and so many others see the administration the way you do... How can you not suspect them, when the press so blatantly tries to falsely drum up any old s.h.i.t. they can find to create doubt in the minds of it's readers.

    Cheney and other Bush administration officials also believed that the CIA debriefing report might undermine Wilson's claims because it showed that Wilson's Niger probe was inconclusive on the uranium questions.
    How about the frickin truth, that is actually bolstered the CIA's and DIA's assertion that they were in fact seeking uranium.

    Wilson was restricted on the persons he was able to interview in Niger, and he was denied some intelligence information before undertaking the trip.
    Thats because the moron wasn't a CIA agent and didn't have the security clearance to view classified intelligence! Take a guess why this irrelevant information is sited in this article...


    Here we go again...

    But two government officials with first-hand knowledge of events said during the summer of 2003, Libby and other White House officials sought any reports and other classified information regarding Wilson's Niger trip, and it was provided at that time.
    Who are these "Government officials"? Ahhh, nevermind...


    But other portions remained highly classified at the time that Cheney directed Libby to leak portions of the report, two senior government officials said in interviews. These officials say the White House abandoned its attempt to declassify all or part of the March 2002 report when Tenet released his statement.
    Ditto...

    The federal indictment of Libby states: "On or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents were faxed to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of Libby and another person in the Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed, among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After receiving these documents, Libby and one or more persons in the Office of the Vice President hand wrote the names 'Wilson' and 'Joe Wilson' on the documents."
    Don't you see what's going on here DeeDee????

    Look at the three highlighted parts of the paragraph above.

    The first one, is to DRILL IT into their readers heads that these were "Classified" documents (bad bush, bad bush), when the fact is they had been declassified in a perfectly legal and acceptable manner. They mention this continuously throughout the article. Do you think this was because they thought their readers didn't figure it out the first dozen or so times they said it?

    The second and third ones, are the writer trying to AGAIN (he already mentioned this before) to stress how confidential these documents were by stating that they hand wrote Wilson's name on them.



    It is unclear if one of the documents in question, or the one with Wilson's name handwritten on it by someone in the Vice President's office, was the March 2002 CIA report, but the fact that it did not mention Wilson by name suggests that it possibly was indeed the one with the handwriting
    Besides more "hand written" references, they are now trying to suggest that the information that he gave to the reporter was incomplete, when they have no evidence to back this up with.


    Cheney, Libby, and others wanted to leak and portions of the report...
    They did not "Leak" anything. Everything that was given to the reporter was declassified by the president. A "Leak" is when you disclose classified information.



    Among other things, Wilson had agreed only to interview former Nigerien officials, instead of current ones, so as not to step on the toes of the State Department or its then-ambassador to Niger, and he was disadvantaged in his inquiries, the two senior government officials said.
    OMFG! Again with innuendos from these "Mystery" officials.

    There is no way on earth you can tell me DeeDee, that you don't see that this article is designed to create doubt about the credibility of the administration, and at the same time paint Joe Wilson as some kind of disadvantaged CIA patsy, sent on a mission that the CIA never intended him to complete sussessfully... All they have been doing is attacking the administration and tossing in excuses to justify Wilson's incompetence.

    And finally DeeDee, to answer your questions. You asked:

    "should Dick Cheney resign, since he authorized the leak? Or should the President fire him, since that was his promise?"

    From the article you linked to:

    The Bush administration has asserted that presidents have the constitutional right to declassify information. Although vice presidents haven't shared such authority, President Bush issued an executive order in March 2003 allowing Cheney to share such authority with him.
    a "leak" is when classified information is given to member(s) of the public.
    When a document has been declassified, it isn't a "Leak" of information, it is releasing of information.

    So DeeDee, the answer to your questions are simple, because the VP didn't leak anything, and therefore, the president's promise doesn't apply to this situation, the answer to both of your questions is "NO"

    .

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,221

    Re: CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Viewpoints, Outlook


    April 10, 2006, 7:46PM

    It all depends on what your definition of a leak is
    By E.J. DIONNE JR.

    What's amazing about the defenses offered for President Bush in the Valerie Plame leak investigation is that they deal with absolutely everything except the central issue: Did Bush know a lot more about this case than he let on before the 2004 elections?


    But first, let's offer full credit to the Bush spin operation for working so hard and so effectively to change the subject.

    The news was the court filing by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald reporting that President Bush, through Vice President Cheney, had authorized I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to leak sensitive intelligence information in July 2003 to discredit claims made by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

    Wilson had fired a direct shot at the White House's rationale for the war in Iraq by saying the administration had distorted intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein's supposed efforts to obtain nuclear materials. The threat that Saddam might go nuclear was an emotional centerpiece of the administration's case for war. Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's national security adviser, made the case with great dramatic effect on Sept. 8, 2002: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

    The president's defenders want you to think that when it comes to leaking, every president does it. Why should Bush be held to a different standard? Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., told CNN on Sunday that the Bush administration was innocently asking itself "how do we get the full story out there?"

    Besides, since the president can authorize the declassification of anything he chooses to declassify, he can't be involved in anything untoward. "This was not a leak," Joseph diGenova, a top Republican lawyer, told The New York Sun's Josh Gerstein. "This was an authorized disclosure." Ah, yes, it depends upon what the meaning of the word "leak" is. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?

    These arguments merely distract attention from why Fitzgerald's disclosure was so important. When a fuss was kicked up in the fall of 2003 about the leaking of the name of Wilson's wife, former CIA operative Valerie Plame, to the media earlier in the year, the president spoke and acted as if he knew nothing and was incensed that any leaking was going on in his administration.

    In its issue of Oct. 13, 2003, Time magazine quoted Bush as saying: "Listen, I know of nobody I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information." Then the magazine's writers made an observation that turns out to be prescient: "Bush," they wrote, "seemed to emphasize those last two words as if hanging on to a legal life preserver in choppy seas."

    The key words here are classified information. Did Bush at the time he made that statement know perfectly well that Cheney and Libby were involved with the leak, but that it didn't involve "classified information" because the president himself had authorized them to act? Talk about a legalistic defense. Could it be that Bush heading into what he knew would be a difficult election was creating the impression of wanting the full story out when he already knew what most of the story was?

    Which leads to another question: What exactly did Attorney General John Ashcroft know when he recused himself from the leak investigation?

    Did he know the investigation was getting dangerously close to Bush, Cheney, Libby and White House senior political adviser Karl Rove?

    In announcing Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30, 2003, Deputy Attorney General James Comey said that Ashcroft, "in an abundance of caution, believed that his recusal was appropriate based on the totality of the circumstances and the facts and evidence developed at this stage of the investigation." What were the "facts" and the "evidence" on which Ashcroft acted? Did the administration consciously consider if passing off the investigation to someone else would delay the day of reckoning to beyond the 2004 election? And, yes, what exactly did Bush tell Fitzgerald and his staff when they questioned him on June 24, 2004? What had Cheney told Fitzgerald earlier?

    The most heartening sign that all the spin in the world will not allow the administration to evade such questions was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter's statement on Fox News Sunday that "there has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the president said to him, and an explanation from the president as to what he said so that it can be evaluated." Specter, a Republican and a former district attorney in Philadelphia, is just the right man to take the lead in breaking the spin cycle.

    Dionne is a columnist for the Washington Post.



    HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Viewpoints, Outlook
    This article is: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...k/3784967.html

  8. #8
    DeeDee1965 is offline Gold Scams Member User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    Now to the matter at hand. DeeDee, you need to take a look at other accounts of this story, because this one tries to lead people to the conclusion that the administration has been "Bad... Real bad" and that is seriously misleading and contradicts the truth.


    The writer is of course implying that what the VP did was "out of line" or a "Breech" of some sort, when it wasn't anything of the sort. It was legal and not unusual for things to be declassified in this manner.


    How about just saying the GD truth, like "Presidents have the constitutional right to declassify information", instead of trying to deceive the readers by implying that only the administration see's it that way.


    Opined??? That is not just an opinion, it is a FACT! Another blatant attempt to cast doubt on the legality of the release of the intelligence.

    So anyway, I was reading the article and noticed that they were at least directly quoting people and substantiating their sources (although still trying to paint a negative picture of the administration) then I got to this gem:


    Funny how this new and startling "Bomb shell" against the administration comes from name-less "Senior government officials", ain't it? After 18 straight paragraphs of naming every source they quoted, they all of the sudden report this damming revelation that "Cheney may have been deciding on his own to authorize the leaking of classified information" without saying who told them this. To top it off, it says "May have been"... They are using un-named sources to attack Cheney on a "Maybe" rumor. lol

    Then there is the next paragraph:


    Give me a MF'n break here!!!!!!! This is speculative, unsubstantiated, yellow, and oh yes boys and girls, liberal B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T. journalism.

    Here are some more examples of why you and so many others see the administration the way you do... How can you not suspect them, when the press so blatantly tries to falsely drum up any old s.h.i.t. they can find to create doubt in the minds of it's readers.


    How about the frickin truth, that is actually bolstered the CIA's and DIA's assertion that they were in fact seeking uranium.


    Thats because the moron wasn't a CIA agent and didn't have the security clearance to view classified intelligence! Take a guess why this irrelevant information is sited in this article...

    Here we go again...

    Who are these "Government officials"? Ahhh, nevermind...


    Ditto...


    Don't you see what's going on here DeeDee????

    Look at the three highlighted parts of the paragraph above.

    The first one, is to DRILL IT into their readers heads that these were "Classified" documents (bad bush, bad bush), when the fact is they had been declassified in a perfectly legal and acceptable manner. They mention this continuously throughout the article. Do you think this was because they thought their readers didn't figure it out the first dozen or so times they said it?

    The second and third ones, are the writer trying to AGAIN (he already mentioned this before) to stress how confidential these documents were by stating that they hand wrote Wilson's name on them.


    Besides more "hand written" references, they are now trying to suggest that the information that he gave to the reporter was incomplete, when they have no evidence to back this up with.


    They did not "Leak" anything. Everything that was given to the reporter was declassified by the president. A "Leak" is when you disclose classified information.


    OMFG! Again with innuendos from these "Mystery" officials.

    There is no way on earth you can tell me DeeDee, that you don't see that this article is designed to create doubt about the credibility of the administration, and at the same time paint Joe Wilson as some kind of disadvantaged CIA patsy, sent on a mission that the CIA never intended him to complete sussessfully... All they have been doing is attacking the administration and tossing in excuses to justify Wilson's incompetence.

    And finally DeeDee, to answer your questions. You asked:

    "should Dick Cheney resign, since he authorized the leak? Or should the President fire him, since that was his promise?"

    From the article you linked to:


    a "leak" is when classified information is given to member(s) of the public.
    When a document has been declassified, it isn't a "Leak" of information, it is releasing of information.

    So DeeDee, the answer to your questions are simple, because the VP didn't leak anything, and therefore, the president's promise doesn't apply to this situation, the answer to both of your questions is "NO"

    .
    Grim17,

    I admit, I could not read your entire post. Mainly, a critque of the journalistic abilites of the writer; your interpretation of how and what, the writer should, or should not have written, was not what I was looking for.

    However all is well, you finally did answer my question, and for that I thank you. :)

    DeeDee1965

  9. #9
    DeeDee1965 is offline Gold Scams Member User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    The most heartening sign that all the spin in the world will not allow the administration to evade such questions was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter's statement on Fox News Sunday that "there has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the president said to him, and an explanation from the president as to what he said so that it can be evaluated." Specter, a Republican and a former district attorney in Philadelphia, is just the right man to take the lead in breaking the spin cycle.
    Grim17,

    Can Arlen Specter be trusted? Are his concerns, valid? Should the administration answer his queries?

    DeeDee1965

    Thanks for the article, Bairdi. :)
    Last edited by DeeDee1965; 04-15-2006 at 10:12 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    Grim17,

    I admit, I could not read your entire post. Mainly, a critque of the journalistic abilites of the writer; your interpretation of how and what, the writer should, or should not have written, was not what I was looking for.

    However all is well, you finally did answer my question, and for that I thank you. :)

    DeeDee1965

    DeeDee, my post was NOT about the abilities of the writer. It was about the blatant and continuous attempts by the writer to deceive his readers and lead them to a conclusion that was not only false, but had no credible evidence what so ever that supported it.

    He painted the administration as doing something wrong, which is absolutely false. He painted Wilson's mission as a no win situation for Wilson, which is also false. He even tried to make his readers believe that what the president LEGALLY did, might in fact not be legal by insinuating that it was only believed legal by the administration, and some aide's opinion. That is complete BULL, just as the conclusions this writer tries (and in this case, succeeds) to get his readers to believe in this article.

    Also DeeDee, have you nothing to say about misquoting me?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    DeeDee, where are you going with this?

    I answered your questions, even though you still haven't explained why you chose to misquote and misrepresent me.

    Your questions keep drifting around without and particular rhyme or reason to them. You asked one thing, then post this Specter quote like it somehow has something to do with your first question to me on this thread...

    Specter said "there has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the president said to him, and an explanation from the president as to what he said so that it can be evaluated."

    That is NOT an accusation made by Specter about the conduct of the white house in this case DeeDee, but the commentary surrounding it from all the one sided articles from far left Anti-Bush sites certainly are accusations.

    Where to next????

    .

  12. #12
    DeeDee1965 is offline Gold Scams Member User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17

    Also DeeDee, have you nothing to say about misquoting me?
    I have no desire, to assuage your hurt feelings, about something that was on topic in CV's thread. My questions had everything to do with the thread topic. It is called, expanding the scope.

    I did not address your charge, of misquoting it is for one simple reason. You've the habit of going off topics with word games, semantics, interpretation, and your own criteria, of what is important, what is valid, and what is worth pursuing. Also, at some point you will not answer a follow-up question, what can be frustrating. You have done it before, and I do not want to get drawn into a 4 reply battle of, "Yes, you did---No I did not."

    So please, let us stay on topic. I have asked a follow-up question.

    Senator Arlen Specter a person who I admire, and fine credible; has ask of the administration, to flesh what happened. He asked on Fox News: "there has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the president said to him, and an explanation from the president as to what he said so that it can be evaluated."

    Since he is not a journalist, a pundit, or has any kind of propagandist, ax to grind, would you say his questions are valid??

    DeeDee1965

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    DeeDee, I already gave my opinion about Specter's statement. To be more specific, the man has the right to ask questions and I don't have a problem with that. It is the inference made by that article I objected to, not Specter's comments.

    NOW DEEDEE... I have patiently and respectfully answered your many questions, even when those questions were off-topic in another thread. I don't feel that I am out of line for asking you to explain why you chose to misquote me and misrepresent my words, so would you please fill me in on why you did this?

    .

  14. #14
    DeeDee1965 is offline Gold Scams Member User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    DeeDee, I already gave my opinion about Specter's statement. To be more specific, the man has the right to ask questions and I don't have a problem with that. It is the inference made by that article I objected to, not Specter's comments.

    NOW DEEDEE... I have patiently and respectfully answered your many questions, even when those questions were off-topic in another thread. I don't feel that I am out of line for asking you to explain why you chose to misquote me and misrepresent my words, so would you please fill me in on why you did this?

    .
    Grim17,

    We crisscrossed replies. I answered you, and you answered me.

    We are done.

    DeeDee1965

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    After the long drawn out non-issue stuff on CV's thread, I thought I would go back to the "leak." Since, according to Grim17, my questions are irrelevant, and not important
    ,

    I will ask once more:

    DeeDee, why have you misquoted me and taken my words out of context?

    I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    As for DeeDee's comments, that is not the topic of this thread. The topic is over the president authorizing Libby to discuss the contents of the National Intelligence Estimate to a reporter at the NY Times. I will however address her question, but it is really not relevant to this topic

    The key words there were "TO THIS TOPIC" and nowhere did I say your questions weren't important. If you recall, I still responded to your questions twice on that thread, responded twice to your questions on this thread, and you show your appreciation by misquoting me and misrepresenting my words... Why?


    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    Grim17,

    We crisscrossed replies. I answered you, and you answered me.

    We are done.

    DeeDee1965
    YOU MISQUOTE ME, MISREPRESENT WHAT I SAID, AND NOW DON'T HAVE HONESTY TO ADMIT IT, OR THE INTEGRITY OR TO EXPLAIN YOUR ACTIONS.

    T.Y.P.I.C.A.L
    C.H.I.C.K.E.N
    S.H.I.T
    L.I.B.E.R.A.L


    .

  16. #16
    DeeDee1965 is offline Gold Scams Member User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: CHENEY AUTHORIZED LEAK OF CIA REPORT, Libby Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    ,

    I will ask once more:

    DeeDee, why have you misquoted me and taken my words out of context?

    I said:

    The key words there were "TO THIS TOPIC" and nowhere did I say your questions weren't important. If you recall, I still responded to your questions twice on that thread, responded twice to your questions on this thread, and you show your appreciation by misquoting me and misrepresenting my words... Why?


    YOU MISQUOTE ME, MISREPRESENT WHAT I SAID, AND NOW DON'T HAVE HONESTY TO ADMIT IT, OR THE INTEGRITY OR TO EXPLAIN YOUR ACTIONS.

    T.Y.P.I.C.A.L
    C.H.I.C.K.E.N
    S.H.I.T
    L.I.B.E.R.A.L


    .
    Grim17,

    I have addressed your question about being misquoted.

    DeeDee1965 wrote:
    I have no desire, to assuage your hurt feelings, about something that was on topic in CV's thread. My questions had everything to do with the thread topic. It is called, expanding the scope.

    I did not address your charge, of misquoting it is for one simple reason. You've the habit of going off topics with word games, semantics, interpretation, and your own criteria, of what is important, what is valid, and what is worth pursuing. Also, at some point you will not answer a follow-up question, what can be frustrating. You have done it before, and I do not want to get drawn into a 4 reply battle of, "Yes, you did---No I did not."
    This is my answer. It might not be what you would like to read, but it is how I chose to address your concern. However, I will concede the word "unimportant," was an unecessary jab.

    I have also asked you before not to label me. You do not know me and you have no idea of my political affiliations, leanings, or what my views are on most subjects. I will ask you once again, not to make assumption about what I think, or how I draw conclusions.

    DeeDee1965

Similar Threads

  1. Libby, Ex-Cheney Aide, Appeals Judge's Prison Order
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-20-2007, 07:25 AM
  2. Libby Guilty: Questions About Cheney Remain
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-07-2007, 03:19 PM
  3. Plame sues Cheney, Libby and Rove
    By bairdi in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-15-2006, 03:35 PM
  4. Cheney may give evidence in Libby trial
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-25-2006, 11:48 PM
  5. Cheney's Office Is a Focus in Leak Case
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2005, 05:36 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
???, abandoned, accounts, accusation, acted, action, actions, address, administration, admit, adviser, age, agen, agreed, aide, ain, allegations, allowing, amazing, ambassador, another, answer, anti, appears, appointment, approval, april, art, article, ation, attack, attacking, attempts, attention, attorney general, authority, authorization, authorized, aware, bad, based, biased, blatant, bomb, break, breaking, bull, called, cannot, case, cast, caught, central, cer, chairman, chance, che, cheney, cia, claim, claims, cleara, clearance, close, comey, commentary, comments, commercial, commit, complete, con, concerned, concerns, confirming, cons, consortium, credibility, credible, credit, cycle, dan, dance, david, day, deal, deception, deciding, decision, deep, definition, department, desire, dick, didn, difficult, dio, direct, director, discuss, distract, district, doesn, don, double, dozen, duck, earlier, earth, electio, embassy, eme, ended, entire, examples, executive order, expand, expanding, explained, fall, false, faulty, fbi investigation, federal, feel, find, finds, fired, foreign, fox, fully, future, games, gave, gem, general, girls, give, government, grand, great, grim, group, guess, guy, hand, hands, happened, hard, heading, heads, held, hey, highly, his, house, html, hurt, hussein, ial, ignored, ill, illegal, imagine, ime, important, industry, information, insult, intelligence, interview, involved, ion, iraq, iraqi, isn, issue, joe, john, josh, journalism, journalist, judiciary, judiciary committee, justify, kicked, kind, knew, lady, last, lead, leads, leak, leaked, legal, legally, lets, liberal, likes, line, lis, listen, lol, long, lot, lying, matter, mea, member, minister, more, moron, mystery, named, nation, national, national security, ner, nice, niger, nuclear, office, officials, operation, order, orders, orwellian, page, part, patrick, perfectly, person, personal, picture, piece, point, policy, pos, post, posted, presiden, president, pretending, prime, process, promised, public, question, questions, quote, quotes, read, real, reason, reasonable, reasons, receiving, recusal, references, refused, release, released, removed, report, reporter, reporting, resign, responsible, rice, rick, rights, rip, role, rove, sale, sanctions, section, sell, senate, senate judiciary committee, sensitive, sept, served, service, set, shared, sho, shot, show, showed, sign, simple, smoking gun, soo, sorry, sounds, sour, source, sources, special, staff, stage, star, state department, states, stay, stephen, story, stuff, subs, sul, summer, sunday, supported, supporting, take a look, taken, talk, ted, text, they, thought, thread, time, times, tme, told, top, tor, trip, trusted, truth, unfortunate, uranium, url, usual, vice, victim, view, wanted, wilson, win, working, worth, worthy, wrong, year, york

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •