Bush admits administration leaked CIA name

[dignitized]

Max-was it an accident you missed the point? It is impossible to leak open information. Will it now be claimed bush didnt mean to say 'leaked?' lol

Saying that is it possible that a leak occurred is not an admission of a leak or that what was supposedly "leaked" was seekrit.

 

[JoyJuice]

Covert ops have covert op job covers.

he said it was POSSIBLE that someone leaked . . . .

When have you ever known the CIA to tell the truth? lol

Saying that is it possible that a leak occurred is not an admission of a leak or that what was supposedly "leaked" was seekrit.

I can't figure out of you're serious, or with all due respect just naive or in denial?

 

[mayfly]

This article is mislabeled. The Pres never admitted anyone in his admin leaked the name. He said it seemed likely.

There is no cover up. I hear only a lot of liberal sour grapes that the investigation failed to harm the administration. Bush and Cheney came out clean and pure.

I like that!

 

[k]

Oj simpson came out of his trial clean and pure as well. Bush said it was likely leaked from his admin so that likely means some people will use that wiggle room to claim pure innocence. I mean its not like bush pardoned anyone convicted throughout the investigation or anything.

 

[JoyJuice]

This article is mislabeled. The Pres never admitted anyone in his admin leaked the name. He said it seemed likely.

There is no cover up. I hear only a lot of liberal sour grapes that the investigation failed to harm the administration. Bush and Cheney came out clean and pure.

I like that!

Just like when Mafia underlings obstruct justice to protect their bosses, what Libby did protected his boss. I find it odd that you would find pleasure in the idea that through lying people came out clean by partaking in what your religion considers sin.

...and Christians wonder why people roll their eyes at people who claim to follow Jesus.

 

[k]

That is an excellent point and when Christians who defend proven liars meet Christ they will have a tough time explaining why they chose to support a politician over Christ! They also have to explain why it was worth it at the cost of witnessing and pushing people away who may otherwise have sought Christ. I'd hate to be in their shoes!

 

[MachZer0]

That is an excellent point and when Christians who defend proven liars meet Christ they will have a tough time explaining why they chose to support a politician over Christ! They also have to explain why it was worth it at the cost of witnessing and pushing people away who may otherwise have sought Christ. I'd hate to be in their shoes!

Seems to me that when we meet Christ, as Christians, He will be defending us and Libby as well, if he is a Chriastian. So your complaint obviously is with Christ.

 

[MachZer0]

Just like when Mafia underlings obstruct justice to protect their bosses, what Libby did protected his boss. I find it odd that you would find pleasure in the idea that through lying people came out clean by partaking in what your religion considers sin.

...and Christians wonder why people roll their eyes at people who claim to follow Jesus.

Expalin to us please how Libby obstructed justice when the prosecutor already knew who originally gave the name out to the media and determined that it was not a crime

 

[k]

Christ does not defend liars and he surely doesnt defend placing politicians above God. So go ahead and sin some more mach-its between you and Christ.

 

[MachZer0]

Christ does not defend liars and he surely doesnt defend placing politicians above God. So go ahead and sin some more mach-its between you and Christ.

My Bible says that when I sin, I have an advocate, Jesus. I don't know what you claim your Bible says

 

[k]

Arrrggghhh-spelling error-should have been 'spin.' as in spin my posts away.

 

[JoyJuice]

Expalin to us please how Libby obstructed justice when the prosecutor already knew who originally gave the name out to the media and determined that it was not a crime

Let me explain this to you for again the upteinth time.

If 5 people leak the name of a covert officer to different people; where one leaked to their gardener. One leaked to their barber. One leaked to their mechanic. One leaked to a journalist and the journalist printed it. They remain in fact all leaks. There is no special clause that the second party has to tell a third parth. It doesnt matter if it got printed or not., they as Government officials are sworn to keep classified info classified, and when they leak it no matter who is was leaked to and no matter what the person did with it, they still leaked it.

Plames name was dropped a total of 10 times by 5 different whitehouse officials BEFORE the Novak column. It is absolutely looney to think that because someone committed a crime first, all subsequent crimes are irrelevant.

I'm keeping this post for posterity since you have a pension of being coy.

 

[MachZer0]

Let me explain this to you for again the upteinth time.

If 5 people leak the name of a covert officer to different people; where one leaked to their gardener. One leaked to their barber. One leaked to their mechanic. One leaked to a journalist and the journalist printed it. They remain in fact all leaks. There is no special clause that the second party has to tell a third parth. It doesnt matter if it got printed or not., they as Government officials are sworn to keep classified info classified, and when they leak it no matter who is was leaked to and no matter what the person did with it, they still leaked it.

Plames name was dropped a total of 10 times by 5 different whitehouse officials BEFORE the Novak column. It is absolutely looney to think that because someone committed a crime first, all subsequent crimes are irrelevant.

I'm keeping this post for posterity since you have a pension of being coy.

Two things. First, the administration has the authority to declassify information. Second, since you believe factually that 5 people leaked classified information, and you are so unabashedly confident of those alleged facts, maybe you can explain why Fitzgerald did not charge anyone. Do you see him as incompetent or do you have information that he was unable to obtain due to Libby's alleged obstruction

 

[MachZer0]

Arrrggghhh-spelling error-should have been 'spin.' as in spin my posts away.

Translation:

You got me that time but I don't want to admit it.

Pwned

 

[k]

It was a simple spelling error so if you want to accuse me of lying then i dont give a rat's. Like i said-spin away!

 

[JoyJuice]

Two things. First, the administration has the authority to declassify information.

Not covert agents and there is a specific process for declassifying info.

Second, since you believe factually that 5 people leaked classified information, and you are so unabashedly confident of those alleged facts, maybe you can explain why Fitzgerald did not charge anyone.

That has been explained to you by me twice already.

Do you see him as incompetent or do you have information that he was unable to obtain due to Libby's alleged obstruction

Everyone one knows, well I take that back, people paying attention know that it was all initiated from Cheney's office, and that's where Libby's obstruction took place. Remember Fitzy talking about the cloud that hangs over the VP's office.

 

[JoyJuice]

Seems to me that when we meet Christ, as Christians, He will be defending us and Libby as well, if he is a Chriastian. So your complaint obviously is with Christ.

According to the Bible Jesus will be judging you according to your deeds. My point is the living followers of Christ have a very wacky moral compass that makes their faith observantly meaningless to outsiders.

I think Paul has a verse that calls for Christians, given the example to others in the way they live their lives, to be ready to explain what it is about them that makes them different. However, just by a whole lot posters here who carry the cross icon, don't worry, by example there is nothing other than perhaps being the antithesis of Christ, that will compel others towards inquire.

 

[MachZer0]

According to the Bible Jesus will be judging you according to your deeds.

Yes, but not for our salvation since all of our misdeeds are forgiven

My point is the living followers of Christ have a very wacky moral compass that makes their faith observantly meaningless to outsiders.

So your moral compass is superior and you know that because why? Oh, because it's your moral compass

I think Paul has a verse that calls for Christians, given the example to others in the way they live their lives, to be ready to explain what it is about them that makes them different. However, just by a whole lot posters here who carry the cross icon, don't worry, by example there is nothing other than perhaps being the antithesis of Christ, that will compel others towards inquire.

And you are the expert on what it means to follow Christ and you became an expert because you have a superior moral compass?

 

[JoyJuice]

Yes, but not for our salvation since all of our misdeeds are forgiven

Not according to Revelations.

So your moral compass is superior and you know that because why? Oh, because it's your moral compass

Never said it was superior, but clearly given some of the zeal to defend the undefendable, you won't find many here taking that tact....and most who do are Christian.

And you are the expert on what it means to follow Christ and you became an expert because you have a superior moral compass?

No one needs to be an expert. What Christ asked through example and parable isn't rocket science. It just goes back to that judge them by fruits thing and being observant.

 

[MethodMan]

As a friendly reminder, this is not a debate forum