Wait- you realize you're inderectly defending Fitzgerald? I mean, that's cool if you are, I'm impressed if that's the case. You know that the quote isn't about Bush?
It doesn't take long for the smear campaign to crank up. I think the garbage from the mouth of the Senator from Texas on Sunday, and this, indicate better than any other thing I've read recently that we will see indictments of one, or both... Rove and Libby. Keep D&D Civil.
i have no reason to feel one way or another about fitzgerald. on present evidence he's conducted the investigation in a professional manner. the proof will be in the result of the investigation.
Exactly, basso. So, will you be shocked if indictments are issued for Rove and/or Libby? Will you dismiss the indictments, should they occur, as being the product of an overzealous prosecutor, out to make a name for himself? That is the current talking point, you know. More will be added, I'm sure... talking points designed to smear Fitzgerald. What say you, basso? Will indictments against the top advisors of both the President, and of the Vice President, cause you to view those two people in a different way at all, should that occur? Keep D&D Civil.
Shouldn't they be tried and convicted first? before anyone changes how they feel about someone merely accused of crimes? I realize that Austin isn't much like the rest of America, but c'mon Deckard...
Giddy, does nothing faze you? After months of denying any wrongdoing occurred, and that the mere idea that Rove, much less Libby, could be indicted... and remember, I phrased my question under the premise, "if it occurred," wouldn't you be the least bit shocked that a Justice Department investigator, a Republican, appointed by a Republican, that if he found enough evidence to indict one or both of those two, that it is enough to shake the confidence of the strongest Administration supporters? If not their confidence in the President, then their confidence in the person or persons indicted? Should that occur? Come on... give me a break! Are you saying that you wouldn't be shocked, buddy? Keep D&D Civil.
No, I wouldn't be shocked because politics is a rough dirty sport in which the participants are always trying to bend, extend, re-shape and re-define the rules. Why be surprised when someone crossed that line? What percentage of indicted "criminals" are not convicted?
So "why be surprised when someone crossed that line," (committed a crime) on the one hand, and "What percentage of indicted "criminals" are not convicted?" on the other? Aren't you covering all bases here, giddy? Everyone does it, so what, and if they are accused, so what? The top advisors to the President and Vice President are just doing what politicians do and, dammit, if they are indicted, they haven't been convicted? It's like you are saying they are guilty as charged, but they aren't guilty, because they haven't been convicted. I'm getting dizzy, giddy! Keep D&D Civil.
The Mother Load! --------------------- Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Notes Show By DAVID JOHNSTON, RICHARD W. STEVENSON and DOUGLAS JEHL WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday. Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/p...&en=db7d02c93e5913ef&ei=5094&partner=homepage
No, it is you who are "saying" that they are guilty as charged. I'm chiming in with basso about not pre-judging. There seems to be a victory being claimed here just because there have been charges filed. It's very simple: not everyone who has charges filed against them is found guilty of a crime. Is there possible political motivation here? Will you be disappointed if these Republicans are found NOT GUILTY? We both know the answer to that. Still dizzy? Find a nice soft chair. Get a warm cloth for your head. Turn on the Astros game but no jumping up out of your chair with excitement.
Are you seriously equating this with a conspiracy theory? And for you and giddy to sit there and claim some moral high ground about waiting to see what happens is laughable.
Moral highground? That's the way the system works. Something about.... "innocent until proven guilty." While a politically-motivated will to convict may be the moral lowground and while perspective is relative, that doesn't put us on the highground.
