Bill, If the "screenshot" of the whitehouse website is a joke, it is a very poor one. As I'm sure you can see for yourself, the actual whitehouse.gov/news/ website has no such information. Please clarify. (and SHAME on you for getting us all excited prematurely!).
Oh, dear. Sorry to get everyone's hopes up. No chance, btw, that any such announcement would appear on the WH Web site. I don't think. 'Specially the part about former President Clinton "laughing and laughing and laughing." ;)
Bill, Bill, Bill. What are we going to DO with you?
Why are you so anxious to see all these folks get indicted? And on what charge? The law specifically states that the agent has to be covert, posted overseas, and "outed" within five years of his/her completion of last covert assignment. As Ms. Plame had completed her last covert action about 1997 (because, as I recall, the CIA feared her cover had been blown by one of the traitors that was found in the security service), it's difficult to imagine why all this is getting such coverage, or why you are so gleeful about it. And you know darn well that the special prosecutor said there'd be no indictments out today. Sorry to disappoint you.
Can't you find anything real to go after? Why try to blow up what is truly a non-event into some kind of national security crisis? Were you this upset by any other security breaches in the past? Why, breaching security has been a revered practice of the left ever since 1971, when Daniel Ellsberg leaked the "Pentagon Papers." I thought you guys quiver with happiness each time someone messes with national security -- why is this non-event so offensive?
Why, next you'll be telling us that lying under oath is a BAD thing, and that oral sex really IS sex. You might even find a reason to tell us that being impeached and disbarred ISN'T a badge of honor. Maybe someday you'll even enlighten us with the news that Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey AREN'T trailer trash, and Paula Jones told the truth while Anita Hill lied!
Hey, stranger things have happened! But regardless, it's always interesting to try to guess what side you all will come down on -- today, that is!
p.s. did you know that Juanita and Kathleen are visiting the Clinton Library today? It's true -- Google it. I wonder why you didn't hear that reported in the old line media?? I guess they were too busy slobbering over Cindy Sheehan's "die in."
" He that rejoiceth when the prosecutor indicteth, yea shall he feel the scorn of the Eumengenes, and again, even the displeasure of the Hardassinites. "
Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, my pal Bruce ... what are we going to do with everyone who likes to dredge up ("drudge" up?) former President Clinton's screw-ups (literally, in his case), rather than confront the facts about the Iraq war?
We'll find out soon if there was a violation of the law on the Plame outing -- you're quite right that the statute is written in a way that makes indictment on the outing charge difficult.
But of course you know that the perjury and obstruction of justice charges are not just about Plame. They are, as we'll see, and as we already know, about the misleading case for war.
Indeed, if no crime was committed, as you state quite resolutely, why would anyone lie to prosecutors about it?
Clinton's misdeeds, which are indisputable, and on which you and quite likely agree, do not approach the significance contained in the very first pixel of the word "war."
That's funny Bill!!! ANYONE with half a brain can figure out it's not real in about 3 seconds. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and they are the ones objecting.
Bruce in San Francisco must be drinking the city water. Bruce how about "its not about the sex, its about the lying"? Perhaps he has been taking a few HYPOCRIXIL!
10 Comments:
I just went to the site and it is not showing anything about any indictments. Damn!
Bill, If the "screenshot" of the whitehouse website is a joke, it is a very poor one. As I'm sure you can see for yourself, the actual whitehouse.gov/news/ website has no such information. Please clarify. (and SHAME on you for getting us all excited prematurely!).
Oh, dear. Sorry to get everyone's hopes up. No chance, btw, that any such announcement would appear on the WH Web site. I don't think. 'Specially the part about former President Clinton "laughing and laughing and laughing." ;)
Bill, Bill, Bill. What are we going to DO with you?
Why are you so anxious to see all these folks get indicted? And on what charge? The law specifically states that the agent has to be covert, posted overseas, and "outed" within five years of his/her completion of last covert assignment. As Ms. Plame had completed her last covert action about 1997 (because, as I recall, the CIA feared her cover had been blown by one of the traitors that was found in the security service), it's difficult to imagine why all this is getting such coverage, or why you are so gleeful about it. And you know darn well that the special prosecutor said there'd be no indictments out today. Sorry to disappoint you.
Can't you find anything real to go after? Why try to blow up what is truly a non-event into some kind of national security crisis? Were you this upset by any other security breaches in the past? Why, breaching security has been a revered practice of the left ever since 1971, when Daniel Ellsberg leaked the "Pentagon Papers." I thought you guys quiver with happiness each time someone messes with national security -- why is this non-event so offensive?
Why, next you'll be telling us that lying under oath is a BAD thing, and that oral sex really IS sex. You might even find a reason to tell us that being impeached and disbarred ISN'T a badge of honor. Maybe someday you'll even enlighten us with the news that Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey AREN'T trailer trash, and Paula Jones told the truth while Anita Hill lied!
Hey, stranger things have happened! But regardless, it's always interesting to try to guess what side you all will come down on -- today, that is!
p.s. did you know that Juanita and Kathleen are visiting the Clinton Library today? It's true -- Google it. I wonder why you didn't hear that reported in the old line media?? I guess they were too busy slobbering over Cindy Sheehan's "die in."
" He that rejoiceth when the prosecutor indicteth, yea shall he feel the scorn of the Eumengenes, and again, even the displeasure of the Hardassinites. "
Book of Indictments
Chapter 4, vs 4 and 5
Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, my pal Bruce ... what are we going to do with everyone who likes to dredge up ("drudge" up?) former President Clinton's screw-ups (literally, in his case), rather than confront the facts about the Iraq war?
We'll find out soon if there was a violation of the law on the Plame outing -- you're quite right that the statute is written in a way that makes indictment on the outing charge difficult.
But of course you know that the perjury and obstruction of justice charges are not just about Plame. They are, as we'll see, and as we already know, about the misleading case for war.
Indeed, if no crime was committed, as you state quite resolutely, why would anyone lie to prosecutors about it?
Clinton's misdeeds, which are indisputable, and on which you and quite likely agree, do not approach the significance contained in the very first pixel of the word "war."
That's funny Bill!!! ANYONE with half a brain can figure out it's not real in about 3 seconds. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and they are the ones objecting.
Fresh off the wire.... Bill Clinton laughs ass off, loses 40 pound.
Bill, If the "screenshot" of the whitehouse website is a joke, it is a very poor one.
Dude, time to brush up on the reading comp skills...
Whoa. Someone thought it was real? Could explain why so many people think 172% of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqicans.
Bruce in San Francisco must be drinking the city water. Bruce how about "its not about the sex, its about the lying"? Perhaps he has been taking a few HYPOCRIXIL!
Post a Comment
<< Home