Scooter Libby wrote *what*?

Tom Ace said:

Mark Hickey said:

That's why there are so few of us we get to pick the president. Heh.

Voters don't pick the president; they only pick their state's electors.
If voters picked the president, Bush would have lost in 2000.

Not if they eliminated the dead voters in Chicago first. ;-)

But seriously - can you even IMAGINE what a recount would be like if
we had a close national election? It boggles the mind...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Mark Hickey said:

Jasper Janssen said:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/360722p-307363c.html

Now, I'm all for freedom of speech.. but do you really want someone who
writes *that* kind of book in the upper regions of government?

I'd rather they write trash than DO trash in the Oval Office...

" screw the intel, I'm gonna invade, show that turd who's boss!!!"

in the oval office

Well, Peter... I have to say - if that's what turns up in any
(credible...) investigation, I'll be downright disappointed with the
prez.

For now, I just have to take comfort in the fact that all the
bipartisan commissions trying to find any hint of intel tampering or
influencing didn't find it, even during an extremely contentious
election.

I know that's at odds with all the hand-waving, shrill op-eds that are
long on personal opinions and curiously short on any historical fact,
but I'm funny that way. I always prefer facts over fabrication.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Mark Hickey said:

Jasper Janssen <[email hidden]> wrote:

> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/360722p-307363c.html
>
> Now, I'm all for freedom of speech.. but do you really want
> someone who writes *that* kind of book in the upper regions of
> government?

I'd rather they write trash than DO trash in the Oval Office...

" screw the intel, I'm gonna invade, show that turd who's boss!!!"

in the oval office

Well, Peter... I have to say - if that's what turns up in any
(credible...) investigation, I'll be downright disappointed with the
prez.

For now, I just have to take comfort in the fact that all the
bipartisan commissions trying to find any hint of intel tampering or
influencing didn't find it, even during an extremely contentious
election.

I know that's at odds with all the hand-waving, shrill op-eds that are
long on personal opinions and curiously short on any historical fact,
but I'm funny that way. I always prefer facts over fabrication.

Stupid question: If Bush /knew/ there were no WMDs in Iraq (as we often
hear charged), why would he cook up a bunch of bogus BS that there WERE,
knowing that none would be found?!?

And, for that matter, if you're gonna "betray this country" (a la Al Gore
spitfire), why not go all the way and PLANT something somewhere? The poor
sap who did the deed could always commit Fostercide shortly after. (Is this
really more far-fetched than a lot of paranoid blog droppings -- like he
knew about 9/11 in advance, blew up the levee, etc.)

Could the most logical answer -- that the Bush Admin REALLY DID THINK there
were WMDs in Iraq (only ONE of the factors authorizing war, BTW) -- possibly
be right?

Facts take time, and time will tell...

Mark Hickey said:

For now, I just have to take comfort in the fact that all the
bipartisan commissions trying to find any hint of intel tampering or
influencing didn't find it,

Not actually true, you know.

These various commissions/special prosecuters could have come across any
number of "hints" of anything at all. They just didn't report it or
indict anybody for it. The things which can be proven in court rely on
more than just "hints".

It would be more accurate to say they didn't find anything they felt
they could prove.

Mark Hickey said:

but I'm funny that way. I always prefer facts over fabrication.

I guess that explains why you like to keep the facts to yourself and
spew the fabrications out to everybody else.

<http://tinyurl.com/dflq6>

2

Bush now at 35% appoval see here>
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/eveningnews/main1005982.shtml

The American public is fed up with Bush's bull except for his lame
supporters who don't care about the truth but only care about
protecting their guy & their party. Bush Sucks and he can't even stay
on his Mt bike without falling on his face.

The Patriot
John

41 said:

Mark Hickey said:

but I'm funny that way. I always prefer facts over fabrication.

I guess that explains why you like to keep the facts to yourself and
spew the fabrications out to everybody else.

<http://tinyurl.com/dflq6>

How Vandemanesque of you to quote yourself as a reference!

Torque wrenches are UNNECESSARY!!!

John said:

Bush Sucks and he can't even stay
on his Mt bike without falling on his face.

At last some thoughtful, insightful commentary.

Mark 'I had Crazy Sex with Monkeys and I'm proud of it' Hickey said:

I could only assume that you were commenting about conservatives who
weren't prudes.

Hi, Mark -

Just to clarify so you can stop assuming and move on to someone else's
posts to twist into something other than what they wrote/intended:

In response to a post about the trashy/disturbing [censored] that Scooty-Butt
wrote, I piled on the "repugs professed morality barely hides an
underbelly of festering prurient ooze and corruption" by referencing
the "literary" efforts of the wife of the Father of Lies.

I didn't complain about the prudishness of the repugs, I commented on
the nature of it.

If you need me to clarify anything else, please let me know.

D'oh "finds the psychology of the right interesting like an accident on
the highway" Boy

Bill Sornson said:

41 said:

Mark Hickey said:

but I'm funny that way. I always prefer facts over fabrication.

I guess that explains why you like to keep the facts to yourself and
spew the fabrications out to everybody else.

<http://tinyurl.com/dflq6>

How Vandemanesque of you to quote yourself as a reference!

Excuse me but that posts quotes Mark Hickey and the US Dept. of Justice
as references. My post puts the two together side by side. Of course,
you would rather make it harder for readers to see the [censored] for
what it is.s

Bill Sornson said:

Stupid question: If Bush /knew/ there were no WMDs in Iraq (as we often
hear charged), why would he cook up a bunch of bogus BS that there WERE,
knowing that none would be found?!?

And, for that matter, if you're gonna "betray this country" (a la Al Gore
spitfire), why not go all the way and PLANT something somewhere? The poor
sap who did the deed could always commit Fostercide shortly after. (Is this
really more far-fetched than a lot of paranoid blog droppings -- like he
knew about 9/11 in advance, blew up the levee, etc.)

Could the most logical answer -- that the Bush Admin REALLY DID THINK there
were WMDs in Iraq (only ONE of the factors authorizing war, BTW) -- possibly
be right?

In a vague sense, perhaps so. But keep in mind, there are/were many
players in the Bush administration. It's inaccurate to speak of what
the administration "thinks."

My bet is there was a range of beliefs. ISTM that some did _not_ think
there were WMDs, and probably tried to argue that point, but were
hammered down. It may have been that others sincerely believed there
were WMDs - using the same (ahem) impartiality that Mark so frequently
demonstrates, which allows them to reject all contrary evidence. There
may have been some who knew damn well there were no WMDs, but wanted to
get into Iraq at any cost, for either ideological or economic reasons.
And I really believe that the cowboy nominally in charge doesn't
"think" much at all.

In the end, though, I think what swayed the team was the naive belief
that it didn't matter at all. The belief was the Iraqis would welcome
us with hugs and flowers, Saddam would shoot himself in his bunker,
Halliburton would swiftly and profitably handle the rebuilding, and the
result would be miracle forever attributed bo Bush: A free and
peaceful Iraq pumping plenty of oil through Bush-friendly oil
companies, who in turn would have ever more money to donate to
Republican election campaigns. "WMDs? Hey, so we made a little
mistake - but look how well it turned out!"

Seems to be working out a little different, though.

- Frank Krygowski

41 said:

Bill Sornson said:

41 said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

> but I'm funny that way. I always prefer facts over fabrication.

I guess that explains why you like to keep the facts to yourself and
spew the fabrications out to everybody else.

<http://tinyurl.com/dflq6>

How Vandemanesque of you to quote yourself as a reference!

Excuse me but that posts quotes Mark Hickey and the US Dept. of
Justice as references. My post puts the two together side by side. Of
course, you would rather make it harder for readers to see the
[censored] for what it is.s

Excuse me but you "supported" your assertion that Mark "likes to keep the
facts to (him)self and
spew the fabrications out to everybody else" with a link to a post where you
said essentially the same thing.

HAND.

<snip Bill's rush to the defense of his stricken brother-in-lies>

Whatsamatta Mark, cat got his fingers?

Just wondering,

D'ohBoy

D'ohBoy said:

D'ohBoy

I think my ex-wife married you a few years ago!

(That one crashed and burned, too.)

Bill commented:

Quoted message said:

I think my ex-wife married you a few years ago!

I think not.

Anyone who would marry you would DEFINITELY not be of interest to me.
Nor I them.

D'ohBoy

D'ohBoy said:

Bill commented:

Quoted message said:

I think my ex-wife married you a few years ago!

I think not.

Anyone who would marry you would DEFINITELY not be of interest to me.
Nor I them.

Probably true. {pause} She was straight! LOL

Bill "I really need to start ignoring anonymous posters" S.

PS: Read what Victoria Tensing has to say about the CIA leak case; you
won't like it.

I said:

Quoted message said:

Anyone who would marry you would DEFINITELY not be of interest to me.
Nor I them.

Bill "just another racist/homophobic repug" Sornson used the suggestion
that I were gay as an insult, replying:

Quoted message said:

Probably true. {pause} She was straight! LOL

Nice one, DAB. Next time, say that I am a quadraplegic, now that's
FUNNY! Gay is so old.

D'ohBoy

P.S.: Read what I have to say about the CIA leak case; you won't like
it.

D'ohBoy said:

I said:

Quoted message said:

Anyone who would marry you would DEFINITELY not be of interest to
me. Nor I them.

Bill "just another racist/homophobic repug" Sornson used the
suggestion that I were gay as an insult, replying:

Quoted message said:

Probably true. {pause} She was straight! LOL

Nice one, DAB. Next time, say that I am a quadraplegic, now that's
FUNNY! Gay is so old.

Ah. So you can insult me, but a light poke back sends you straight to the
dictionary.

(Hint: If a guys has a friend who says, "Hey, I met someone" and he
replies, "What's his name?" -- that does NOT mean the guy is a homophobe.
It means he has a sense of humor. You apparently don't.)

BTW, your charge isn't even accurate, as I would have had to something like
"she was a she" for it to apply.

Quoted message said:

D'ohBoy

P.S.: Read what I have to say about the CIA leak case; you won't like
it.

I give more credence to the person /who wrote the statute/ than to some
name-changing, thin-skinned, anonymous, paranoid Kool-aid drinker, but
thanks.

Bill "all written with cycling gloves, helmet AND shades donned" S.

Bill reveals his homophobic side by using the suggestion of someone
being gay as an insult:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyone who would marry you would DEFINITELY not be of interest to me.
Nor I them.

Quoted message said:

Probably true. {pause} She was straight! LOL

Nice, Bill, ya DUMBASS.

I'll bet you make fun of people with disabilities too.

D'ohBoy

Quoted message said:

My bet is there was a range of beliefs.

There always is - it would be futile searching for a war that was
entered into with total unanimity by either party.

Quoted message said:

ISTM that some did _not_ think
there were WMDs, and probably tried to argue that point, but were
hammered down. It may have been that others sincerely believed there
were WMDs - using the same (ahem) impartiality that Mark so frequently
demonstrates, which allows them to reject all contrary evidence. There
may have been some who knew damn well there were no WMDs, but wanted to
get into Iraq at any cost, for either ideological or economic reasons.
And I really believe that the cowboy nominally in charge doesn't
"think" much at all.

Frank - help me out here (since you seem to think I need it). ;-)

Say for example that it's your personal job to protect the population
of the US of A. You've been elected to do that, you've promised to do
that, and you've sworn you'll do that.

You claim that there were "some who knew damn well there were no
WMDs", but I have yet to have anyone who held that opinion explain how
they came to that conclusion in the face of the vast amount of
evidence to the contrary. Some had strong opinions, but I've never
heard them opine about where they think all the known WMDs actually
went...

Anyway - back to my original thought. You're the POTUS, and it's your
job to protect the US of A. You're shown a lot of evidence, you read
the intel from many other nations, and from the UNMOVIC weapons
inspectors, and the majority of it suggests that Iraq has current WMD
stores, and that they can make plenty more on short notice.

You also know that Saddam hates the US with a passion, and has in fact
tried to assassinate a former US president, and openly supports
terrorists. There is also a good amount of data suggesting that Iraq
is wooing Al Qaeda (at the time...).

What DO you do? If you do nothing (which is what the Oil for Food
bribes to France and Russia guaranteed if you wait for the UN), and
the evidence is correct, thousands of your citizens could die - and it
would be laid at your feet as a failure to do your duty.

Or do you ignore those who claim that despite the lack of evidence,
the WMDs have ceased to exist somehow and take out a horrible dictator
who richly deserves being taken out?

Thing is, if you're wrong (either way) there's a price to pay.

Personally I prefer to NOT give the benefit of the doubt to those who
really don't deserve it (or at least, to those who had used it up
about a dozen years and UN resolutions ago). But that's just me...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame