Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« I'll Take The Fourth | Main | NSA Thread »

May 12, 2006

Comments

Javani

"At this point we know even Fitz doesn't believe Wilson"

Correct. And if Wilson's lies are explored Libby's will seem pale in comparison. Jury washes its hands of this dirty mess. No conviction.

lemondloulou54

It's a long trip from DC to Niamey, alright, between 15 and 21 hours, depending on what airline, connection, etc. Duh.

windansea

a quick sniff of the tea leaves tells me

Fitz is being cagey about the CIA referal, there's something in it he doesn't want known

Fitz is pretending to focus on the little case so he can limit discovery, which means he probably is still looking for a conspiracy that he thinks Libby obstructed him from seeing

Fitz has not given up on bagging Rove

clarice

Really? I should have thought that the connections to Niamey were more erratic than that.
If not, how much time did he spend there and how much time in France? And why?

Jeff

Jeff - did Robert Grenier testify *after* Aug 2004?

I don't know, but it looks to me like the Grenier-Libby conversation that took place on June 11, 2003, mentioned in paragraph 7 of the indictment, is not mentioned in Fitzgerald's 8-27-04 affidavit. Obviously, a lot of it is redacted, but the obvious place for it - paragraph 27, where Fitzgerald enumerates the government officials Libby talked to about Plame before his Russert conversation - pretty obviously doesn't have it. (There is a bit redacted there, but I don't think it has to do with Grenier, and Fitzgerald says as many as seven government officials, and there are seven government officials identified there, so i think Grenier is not included.) It's possible Fitzgerald knew about Grenier already at that point, and had some other reason to leave the information out. But it is curious.

So you do or don't think clarice has butchered and misused your question about what Libby was told about the damage that could come from outing Plame?

clarice

windansea, he sure doesn't want that referral letter made available. The Judge demanded it and received it, though and we still don't know if he's going to order Fitz to make it--in any form--available to Libby. Remember, Libby has said he is going to argue conspiracy and if that is relevant evidence to a conspiracy charge, he may yet get it. Also the judge may view it , as I do, as the equivalent of a search or arrest warrant which must establish some reasonable cause..Also it may go to the credibility of some witnesses and to Ritz' claim of "classified".

clarice

**FITZ, not Ritz***

Jim E.

If Fitz's case is sooooo weak, why does Wells tell the judge: "I've got a tough haul in front of this jury"?

(Maybe Wells actually said "easy" and the court reporter has BDS?)

OK, a more serious question: Has the defense already subpeonad Washington Post reporters? If not, why not. Near the end of the hearing Jeffress says they are not pursuing anymore reporters. I'm surprised. I figured Corn or May would show up at some point.

topsecretk9

Really? I should have thought that the connections to Niamey were more erratic than that.
If not, how much time did he spend there and how much time in France? And why?

I look through and maybe I missed something, but what is this about? Wilson has details about his travel-- there were only a few flights and had to fly in via France (i think). Someone want to expound on where this discussion is about

Monkey Trainer

Jeff,

"So you do or don't think clarice has butchered and misused your question about what Libby was told about the damage that could come from outing Plame?"

What difference does it make if Libby is not allowed to prove whether or not actual damage was done? The prosecution cannot have it both ways. There is not way that would ever survive an appeal. You can't claim "potential" damage - thereby implying to the jury that damage was actually done, without allowing the defense an opportunity to rebut by showing that no damage was in fact done. That would seriously violate due process - which is exactly what Fitz seems intent on doing here. If he believes he can make his perjury case, he should make it - motive is not an element of the crime and does not need to be proven. If he believes he must prove motive to have any chance of a conviction, fine, but the defense deserves the opportunity to defend itself. And, stating that Libbey was warned of "potential" damage, will be incredibly prejudicial in this trial b/c it leads the jury to believe that actual damage was done to national security. Thus, the defense must be allowed to counter on the question of whether or not actual damage was done. Otherwise, that is a slam-dunk reversal in any fair world.

clarice

JimE, I suspect Wells said he had a big burden for the same reason multi-millionaire plaintiff's counsel in tort cases wears cheap clothes and mud encrusted boots to the trial. Indeed, that was a tip I got from a law professor decades ago.

maryrose

Jeff:
As promised yesterday; from Jeff:"Libby had reason to lie per Fitz"
Wrong Jeff; Libby had no reason to lie he was cleared to reveal declassified information. What about that concept don't you get?
Also TM and clarice are right: No harm or foul on Val; just some embarassment to her and the CIA that she can't keep her mouth shut and spilled the beans to blabbermouth Joe.

pollyusa

TS - Thanks for the links

clarice

Here's who I would not want to trade places with once the trial begins: Grossman,Wilson and Fitz.

lemondloulou54

TS wrote: Really? I should have thought that the connections to Niamey were more erratic than that.

That's nearly a whole day of travel time. Add to that 2 plus hours on each end to get to the airport and take off your shoes, etc. Plus jet lag. So it's a day of travel and a day of recovery before any meetings. Then you figure he has to make nice with the current ambassador, with the French ambassador, etc. I didn't check the return, which might have been a stickier. He might have had to stay in Casablance for all I know. You can check out a potential itinerary for yourself at Orbitz if Niamey is on your list of must-sees. It's not on mine.

clarice

No, I wrote that, not ts, and the point I was making is that 8 days does not seem extraordinary for a trip to such an out of the way place.

I thought your point was that it could be done in a day and that seemed to me possible but so exhausting and not terribly probable. As for rest time, well if you spent the night in Europe, you should be able to get work done the day after arrival.. So 2 days travel and 2 back. That leaves 4 days in Niamey...I expect it could be done in shorter time but it is not an extradordiarily long visit either.

Jim E.

That's a fascinating list of people in the trial you wouldn't want to trade places with, clarice. Really.

But for me, I wouldn't want to trade places with Libby. After all, Scooter, unlike the folks you mention, is the defendent and is facing prison time. But maybe I'm just crazy.

maryrose

I think I would not want to be in Mitchell's or Russert's shoes either- or Cooper's.
Also why does Ari Fleisher get a pass?

maryrose

JimE:
Libby will never spend a day in jail. He'll be like Clinton-the teflon man.

Gary Maxwell

If Fitz's case is sooooo weak, why does Wells tell the judge: "I've got a tough haul in front of this jury"?

Well maybe in his minds eye he is envisioning a jury box of Jim E clones, each denser than the original ( is that possible? ) and quite willing to ignor inconvenient facts if it gets a stone thrown at the current sitting President?

clarice

Undoubtedly. And perhaps he envision's Jeff giving Libby's summation..OTOH I think Wells will cut to the chase and Fitz will give the jury the old roundabout and put them to sleep.

kim

At this point, Jim E., isn't it empty-headed to think that the only way reporters knew about Plame is if Libby told them. Who'd make that case?
======================================

Jim E.

Gary "Africans in the fuel supply" Maxwell,

I'm "dead" to you, remember? You said you'd never deal with me ever again, remember? So why are you quoting and responding to my posts, and mentioning me in your posts?

kim

I think it might be kind of fun to be Libby, you know, opening up discovery on all his accusers.
============================

kim

Why don't you explain emptywheel's cogitation, not explore your own pockets of resentment?
=====================================

kim

And, if you're into old, forgotten, far-off things, how about explaining the Wilsons and the Grossmans in the woodpile?
======================================

kim

It was sort of amusing when Wells pointed out to Fitz that Fitz really doesn't have any idea what Joe Wlson will say once he is on the stand.
=============================

Pete

I think that all the flack that Fitz is getting here points to anything but his case being weak.

Can you imagine the spin when Rove gets indicted?

cathyf
So the issue of potential damage from discussing it may come up. In a different conversation that Mr. Libby was present for, a witness did describe to Mr. Libby and another person the damage that can be caused specifically by the outing of Ms. Wilson. It was before the grand jury. It was back in July of 2003.
So I'm back at trying to parse this puzzling piece of Fitzlegab. Ok, so for two weeks after David Corn outed Plame by publishing info that Joe Wilson had given him we would still be in "July of 2003" right? Is there any indication whether this conversation was before Corn or after?

Fitzgerald's assertion actually says a lot less than it appears. "July 2003" is worthless -- whether it was July 1st or July 31st makes a huge amount of difference. As TM has already pointed out, whether the "damage" was "violating the law by outing a covert agent" or "giving the liars ammunition to tell more lies about us" matters even more.

Suppose that the conversation was in the 2nd half of July, not the first, after the shitstorm of faux outrage was already raging, and suppose that the conversation was more like, "If the press finds out we declassified the NIE in order to rebut Wilson, they will spin it to say that we outed Plame. Even if we never mentioned Plame to anybody, they will take any admission that we had any rebuttal at all to Wilson's lies and twist it around to say that we admitted that we outed Plame [insert eyeroll] to punish Wilson."

Look, I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's one of a myriad set that satisfies Fitzgerald's statements. (The main reason that it is unlikely is that it shows an amazing prescience on the part of the damage-warmer if that's what happened.)

cathy :-)

kim

Any port in a storm, huh, Pete? Whatever eases your thwarts.
=======================================

kim

Notice, too, that Fitz uses 'Mrs. Wilson'. Is this more of the Val Plame/Mrs. Wilson distinction? In that witnessed conversation, was she identified dually? May make a difference when we look at just what Libby said and why.
====================================

Sue

Why does Fitzgerald want to start on July 6th? Wilson was out lying much earlier.

kim

Sue, remember, it's only about the perjury. Joe Wilson says so.
========================================

Sue

So Libby didn't have a conversation with Miller on June 23rd?

kim

No, because he didn't spill to her about Val, then. What else would they have had to say to each other?
=================================

PeterUK

Pete,
"I think that all the flack that Fitz is getting here points to anything but his case being weak."

It could be said that you turning up here and commenting indicates that Fitz's case is weak and you are whistling in the dark.

Semanticleo

"Can you imagine the spin when Rove gets indicted?"

hardly. It's already puke-dizzy.

kim

Fitz is demonstrating the strategy that to keep justice blind, limit discovery.
================================

Gary Maxwell

Did I say dead or dumber than a sack of rocks? I just cant remember right at the moment. My last post was not addressed to anyone. And neither is this one. But I assume if you resemble the comment so well it could have been made from a plaster cast of you, you might notice the resemblance.

And no one is going to tell me where and what I can post on, except of course Mr. Maguire who seems quite benevolent, especially so when it comes to dumb as a rock lefties.

boris

I guess if we can beat a dead horse ...

Sue

Isn't today Fitzmas Day?

Jim E.

Gary Maxwell wrote: "And no one is going to tell me where and what I can post on"

You previously wrote that I was "dead" to you, and that you would ignore me in the future. Yet you just quoted from my post, responded to it, and wrote my name, as well as a personal attack against me, in your own post. It was you, Gary Maxwell, who promised to ignore me in the future. And here you are responding to me yet again.

But Gary Maxwell will apparent stand tall and not listen to himself! Bravo!

boris

I bet you think this song is about you, don't you ...

Gary Maxwell

Congratulations on having more lives than a mangy cat. Many other resemblances too.

boris

If he didn't have hair balls he'd have no balls at all

kim

More amusement; emptywheel can't seem to understand why Fitz doesn't want to talk about anything before July 8.
=====================================

kim

Jim E., quit trying to explain yourself, and try to explain emptywheel. Why is she surprised that Fitz doesn't want to talk about anything before July 8?
==========================

Sue

MR. WELLS: Well, if I'm trying to show that Mr. 05 Grossman should not be believed and I can show that what Mr. 06 Grossman says he told Mr. Libby that either he could not have 07 learned it by that particular date or it was wrong -- 08

If true, Grossman could be in trouble.

Sue

Kim,

Me either.

topsecretk9

TS wrote: Really? I should have thought that the connections to Niamey were more erratic than that.

LouLou Head...I did not write that, i was only asking what or how the *general* discussion was about/came about.


Polly-
As always -- thank you too! ::smile::

topsecretk9

I'm "dead" to you, remember?

JimE, you have 9 lives.

MR. WELLS: Well, if I'm trying to show that Mr. 05 Grossman should not be believed and I can show that what Mr. 06 Grossman says he told Mr. Libby that either he could not have 07 learned it by that particular date or it was wrong -- 08

If true, Grossman could be in trouble.

Sue,

this is what I think too.

Sue

THE COURT: I may not let that in. They may have to 00027 01 redact those in some way so that only certain portions come in 02 that would support their theory of what the motive is. I don't 03 think I'd be inclined to let them bring in an entire article if 04 parts of those articles don't really relate to what the motive 05 was, i.e., the outing, and somehow would be prejudicial to Mr. 06 Libby. 07

Very weird. How would you redact articles when the entire article is what they were responding to?

It looks to me that Walton has the motive and the outing already in his head.

clarice

Once again, Fitz, diagram your case!!

clarice

Sue, I think you are misreading that. He is addressing Fitz' right to rely on an unredacted version of the article and the judge is saying that would be prejudicial to Libby..as it contains all the "outing" crap.

In other words, it looks to me like he's saying--if you aren't proving or charging that you aren't goin there.

Sue

The Wilson op-ed itself which started 02 this sort of lift-off was achieved on July 6 where Wilson wrote 03 what I found in Niger

The op-ed didn't start anything. The May 6th Kristoff article started everything. And the EPIC speech. And the Pincus June article. What is up with Fitzgerald? Does he want to start on July 6th just to keep the more egregious of Wilson's lies out of court?

Sue

Clarice,

I don't think so.

NIBystander

“The nub of the case is Libby telling investigators and the grand jury that he had forgotten anyone other than a reporter ever telling him Plame was covert.”

Perhaps I am completely naïve about the law, or perhaps Judge Walton is wrong about what evidence is important to a fair defense?

Per the May 5th filing, starting on the second page:

********************

THE COURT: I am having a real problem assessing how the substance of the trip would be relevant considering the nature of the charges that we have in this case.
…….
THE COURT: I don't know if I'd let that in. Even though it may be set forth the indictment, I'm not sure I would be inclined to let that in. I don't see how that has anything to do with this case.
……..
THE COURT: I could see the relevance of the request allegedly having been made by Mr. Libby to Mr. Grossman to find out information about who allegedly went on the trip and who planned it but the substance of what happened on that trip and what was reported once the Ambassador comes back, I don't see how that is pertinent to the charges.

********************

The question is whether Grossman or Libby has the better ‘memory’ or the more accurate account of the ‘truth’ in any conversations relating to Plame. The Grossman requested INR memo is a major ‘fact’ relating to this matter. The memo consists of 3 pages with 6 major attachments and contains just one sentence on Wilson’s wife. Clearly, both Grossman, and those who prepared the memo, interpreted the ‘request’ as focused on Wilson and the ‘substance’ of Wilson’s findings, NOT on his wife.

Grossman and Fitz may portray that Plame was a big deal in all the Grossman/Libby interactions, but a major document in the written record apparently shows otherwise. This written record indicates the ‘substance’ was of primary importance. In fact, one could argue that the ‘wife’ issue was so small that Grossman could have failed to mention it – or it was stated so casually that Libby ‘missed’ hearing ‘it’.

Though Libby may not have seen the actual memo, I just do not understand how Walton can suppress the memo and the broader discussion. Both aspects seem relevant (to me) as to whether Grossman or Libby is more believable, and why.


Sue

Fitzgerald was rather quiet, for the most part.

clarice

He is talking about how far back his obligation to produce documents goes. The judge has not ruled that Libby cannot go back earlier. Do you suppose if Wilson is on the stand he cannot ask him about the EPIC speech or his appearance before the SDPC on May 2 or what he told Kristof? No.

Rocco

Page 41, SSCI
“The former ambassador left for Niger on February 21, 2002.”

Page 42, SSCI
“On February 26, 2002, the former ambassador arrived in Niger.”

Five days to get there, eight days drinking sweet mint tea, brings us to March 8

Page 43, SSCI
“The update also noted that the CIA would "be debriefing a source who may have information related to the alleged sale on March 5."

“(U) Later that day, two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day.”

Must have used the wayback machine to get home!

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Maybe he is hinting at a cover-up. And certainly, Libby may have blanched and decided to lie even if he learned *after* July 14 that he had stepped in it.'

That's what it looks like Fitz is going for. Something like Libby responding in a meeting to Wilson's public whining about his wife being outed, with 'What's up with that idiot Ambassador?'. And someone in the meeting speculating; 'Well, maybe she was still running agents from her desk at Langley.'

It kind of fits with that the bizarrely asked question by Fitz to Libby in the Grand Jury. The one that reads like an invitation to commit perjury, because that's the only answer that won't get him indicted on a misuse of classified information charge.

clarice

You mean the theory of motive is Libby didn't know and spilled the beans (to whom?) and then found out it was "classified" info and lied? I think the answer is if he didn't know he had no motive to lie and the suggestion that minuscule difference in recollections of short conversations is a result of some senseless coverup is preposteous.

clarice

NIB, with Grossman on the stand, if he is asked the length of the report, its general substance and how much of his report related to Mrs. Wilson and he lies to suggest it was more than it was, I think it would be reversible error for the Court to refuse to demand Fitz turn it over for impeachment.

Sue

The judge hasn't ruled on anything yet. That doesn't change what I said. Fitzgerald is saying that it all started on July 6th.

clarice

Sue, he is describing his case. The judge held this hearing to determine what the parties planned to put on in order to aid him in ruling on the discovery motions. You may be right that he sees the case more narrowly. I think he is trying to keep the case workable but will not deny Libby necessary materials for his defense, and if he does he will be overruled.

clarice

**I think he(J. Walton) is trying to keep the case workable but will not deny Libby necessary materials for his defense, and if he does he will be overruled.
***********

Gary Maxwell

Overruled or overturned? As in an appelate court sending a message that the defendant is entitled to some latitude in demonstrating his defense.

clarice

Overruled if the rulings would preclude a fair trial and he has grounds for an interlocutory appeal. Overturned if he needs to wait for a post trial appeal.

Gary Maxwell

In English for us peasants? I think this means, the issue may be found to be so crucial to the case that the case should be postponed while the Appelate Court is asked to hear an expedited appeal? Is that interlocutory?

Otherwise, hold the trial and if the outcome is adversarial only then you file your appeal?

clarice

Yes.

boris
the theory of motive is Libby didn't know and spilled the beans (to whom?) and then found out it was "classified" info and lied? I think the answer is if he didn't know he had no motive to lie and the suggestion that minuscule difference in recollections of short conversations is a result of some senseless coverup is preposteous.

Maybe slightly less preposterous would be that Libby became aware of "planted evidence" against him (Grossman?), and that colored his testimony in the direction of defensive bafflegab.

BreakinUrBalls

Instead of coming clean with the American people that the President got it wrong on Iraq, the clowns at the White House scurry around trying to find some angle for attacking Joe Wilson for saying what the White House was forced to acknowledge was the truth one week later. And we trust these idiots to do something effective against containg Iran's nuclear threat?

Kate

BUB: We call him Lying Joe Wilson. Even gullible Fitz won't vouch for him. Now he's stuck with his friend Grossman as his lone defender: I believe you, Mr. Ripley, I believe you!!!

As for Iran, why don't we send Lying Joe to investigate, he can bring Val.

kim

What did he get wrong about Iraq, numbnuts.
===========================

kim

While you are at it tell me how you would effectively deal with Iran. Do you have special insight into Ahmadinejad?
===========================

Gary Maxwell

Marshall Wittman wrote a stinging piece this week about "McGovernites with Modems." Since he was speaking to you BuB, one democrat to another, you should read it. I feel confident in offering you this advice, knowing that you and millions like you wont take it. And you will pay for it once again and it will be exceedingly satisfying to laugh at you, again.

PeterUK

"Do you have special insight into Ahmadinejad?"

Kim can't you tell from the prose style,all that elegant flowery language? BUB is Ahmadinejad.

Javani

"Instead of coming clean with the American people that the President got it wrong on Iraq,"

They did. They had Tenet write that ridiculous apology about 16 words about uranium in a speech before thinking about it sufficiently. At that time they, including Joe Wilson, thought Iraq had biological and chemical systems.

"the clowns at the White House scurry around trying to find some angle for attacking Joe Wilson"

The scurrying began earlier with Joe's leaks to the US and British press.

"for saying what the White House was forced to acknowledge was the truth one week later."

All they admitted is they shouldn't have sourced allegations to foreign intel they were not privy too. By the way, Tenet's announcement took jabs at Wilson, as did the later Senate Intel Report.

"And we trust these idiots to do something effective against containing Iran's nuclear threat?"

A secret to life is the leadership isn't all that it is hoped to be. We get people like Libby writing a letter to Miller in jail. That's our top guys! LOL.

kim

Did anybody read how Ahmadinejad copied Mohammad's closing words to people he shortly attacked in his closing words to Bush.

What d'ya think of that BeezleBuB?
=====================

BreakinUrBalls

Oh that's right, Bush is still searching his Office for those darned missing weapons of mass distraction ur destruction. That's worked out well. Joe Wilson said there was not substance to the report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in Niger. U.S. Ambassador to Niger said the same thing. Major General Fulford, ditto. Chief of the European Division for the CIA, Tyler Drumheller, Ditto. NIO for Africa, he said the reports, including the UK reports, were "baseless".
LMFAO. You guys are flat earthers. Still waiting for the rapture?

Gary Maxwell

Still waiting for Gore to be named President? Seems like the joke is on you.

Sue

Still waiting for the rapture?

Well that didn't take long. Can you say predictable?

BreakinUrBalls

Gore? Hell no. Mark Warner or Mitt Romney. Let's have some competence. Try it, you might like it. And, oh yeah, real snappy comeback on your response. Devoid of content, incapable of debating facts.

Sue

Joe Wilson said there was not substance to the report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in Niger. U.S. Ambassador to Niger said the same thing. Major General Fulford, ditto. Chief of the European Division for the CIA, Tyler Drumheller, Ditto. NIO for Africa, he said the reports, including the UK reports, were "baseless".

And you aren't even curious as to why some low level CIA people thought it was necessary to send Mighty Joe when they had all that talent sitting there already? I know I am.

cathyf

So whaddya wanna bet that BeezleBuB is male? Women get their genitals hacked off with broken glass and then spend the rest of their lives in giant hefty bags? It's all debating points to him...

cathy :-)

Gary Maxwell

Devoid of content, incapable of debating facts.

Boy that rich.

Rich in irony. But I take One a Day to get my iron, so its wasted on me.

BreakinUrBalls

Sue,
I
will
talk
real
slow
for
you.
These reports came to the President and Vice President starting in January of 2002 and continued thru January 2003. Forget Ambassador Wilson, how about the others?

PeterUK

Sorry to spoil you rapture BUB,but the intelligence report said" trying to obtain uranium in Africa". Now AFRICA is a BIIIIIIG place with lots of countries,some that produce uranium ore,Niger is just one of them.
You've lost that little atlas that you got for collecting beer cans haven't you?

jerry

Why do you think all those former Secs of State and Defense were at the WH today (especially after getting ignored/abused when they showed up last time)?

Maybe it has to do with that crazy Iranian and his angry nuclear neighbors - several hundred miles to the west?

BreakinUrBalls

Rich in logic too, which is also wasted on a simpleton like you.

Patton

Usually your best bet is Shuster doesn't have his facts straight...you will be right 90 percent of the time.

Sue

And, oh yeah, real snappy comeback on your response. Devoid of content, incapable of debating facts.

Holy shit. What were we thinking? We should have used a real snappy comeback, one not devoid of content and certainly part of facts being debated...something along the lines of "You guys are flat earthers. Still waiting for the rapture?" Would that have impressed you?

Pete

How true BUB.

Seems like most on this forum would rather try anyone but the actual defendant.

Wilson said that the "sixteen words" should not have been in Bush's speech. A few days after Wilson's article, the Bush administration conceded this point. Score 1 for Wilson. Afterwards Wilson said that the VP's office was involved in the leak. The Bush Administration flatly denied it. Wilson was correct and the Bush administration was, ahem, lying. Score 2 for Wilson. On the things of importance, Wilson was correct and the Bush administration was wrong.

The Senate Intelligence Committee detailed how the CIA repeatedly told the Bush administration that the Niger information was unreliable. But instead of telling us what our own CIA, State Dept. etc were saying the Bush Administration had to include information in the State of the Union Speech not from our intelligence, but from a third country because the former did not support their case and the latter supported their case for war. Hadley took the fall for the lapse, and instead of firing him for his lapse Bush rewarded him by promoting him.

Gary Maxwell

Takes one to know one is what granny always said.

Sue

Forget Ambassador Wilson, how about the others?

I would love to forget him. He doesn't want you to forget him. He would be very disappointed if you forget him. He needs the money. California is expensive, I hear.

Rocco

“Joe Wilson said there was not substance to the report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in Niger”

Even though Mayaki told him Iraq was trying to aquire uranium in Niger. Why do they always leave that part out?

Gary Maxwell

Click your heels together and repeat three times "theres no place like home." It will take you back to that magically place and you will find out its all just been a dream and The inventor of the internet was been firmly in office the whole time. (And we still invaded).

PeterUK

I was wondering how weak Fitz's case was,Moonbat central has sent a team of morons,it must be weaker than Joe'sa mint tea.

BreakinUrBalls

Pete,
You da man. Spot on brother. Let's view this as missionary work. We are trying to introduce logic and clear thinking to a group who sit in a tight circle and repeat a mantra of lies over and over. They can call this turd of an Administration chocolate mousse but, at the end of the day, it still needs to be picked up and tossed in the toliet.

Gary Maxwell

Olestra progressives ( totally fact free ) and their non Euclidian geometric logic ( for example where parallel lines meet) are introducing .... Logic!

Okay my damn irony meter has just buried.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame