Novak strikes again.

Ut oh Someone is in trouble LOL This whole Administration is a through Disgrace.

Larry

Good Lord...can we let this dead horse lie in peace? This non-story is gonna give the libs a wedgie again.

I have a hard time understanding why Novak isn't in some legal difficulty for his involvement in this.

What a farce!

Truth doesn't mean anything to the Reich wing!

(except when Clinton LIES about a blow job)

Pitiful!

Novak's defending his neocons and sliming the real Conservatives with this BS. He doesn't have the moniker of "Prince of Darkness" for nothing.

You fruitcakes just cant stand the fact that you cant nail Cheney on this.
BTW - Richard Armitage wasn't exactly considered part of your so called Bush criminal gang. But spin away nitwits!

Ha! Spud remmembers not so long ago around here a coupla rightie tighties trying to dismiss this thing out of hand fer the umpteenth time.

It was just an "inadvertant leak", they sed.

Spud cracked a joke about Ted Stevens, a Depends adult diaper and an inadvertant leak that indicated Spud wasn't buying that interpretation.

"Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column," Novak wrote."

Deliberate character assasination.
Political payback.
Dirty Tricks.

All par for the course fer these guys.

Now why the "Prince of Darkness" would start telling some truth now is anyones guess.

Maybe the "Douchebag of Liberty" as Jon Stewart is fond of calling him is trying to hold onto wotever fetid scraps of dignity and credibility he has left.

Maybe he finally read the writing on the wall.

Maybe he grew a soul.

Regardless, Spud is chuffed to discover more confirming evidence (as if any were needed) detailing wot a bunch of low down conniving liars these BushCo boys really are.

"This non-story" as BradyBill calls it just won't go away.

BBBrain oughtn't get too upset though.

Don't get yer panties in a Bunch there Brady!

Be Well.

Acxtually, Yav, the title "Prince of Darkness" has been given to the most rotten of a bad lot, Richard Perle.

Here's a tidbit from Wikipedia on why Perle truly is ammoral and a sleaze. It describes an encounter at the time of the Gulf War.

"When discussing his new book "Battle Ready" co-authored with retired general Anthony Zinni, author Tom Clancy stated that he almost came to blows with Perle. According to Clancy:

"He was saying how (Secretary of State) Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me." "

"It describes an encounter at the time of the Gulf War."

My mistake. It actually describes the build up to Iraq.

Remember, Perle worked at the Pentagon until he was forced to quit over conflicts of interest around him getting paid to lobby his boss on behalf of corporate clients. Indeed the one and only "Prince of Darkness".

Regarding Novak and Armitage - the whole truth will surface if US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald decides to indict anyone. So far, he hasn't (other than a lying Libby) but there's a lot of shit under the surface of this story, I'll wager, for him to be taking this long on his investigation.

Sagman - thanks for setting me correct on which of the neocons is the most princely of the princes of darkness. It's been getting more difficult each day. I did a google search for "Prince of Darkness" and you're quite right - Perle comes up as the first political hit!

That quote sums up this entire cadre's attitude. That should be chilling to anyone that reads it. I wish the American people had the time, energy, interest - whatever it is that's needed - to know what is going on and to make a difference this November.

Google sometime Richard Perle and Illegal War and see what You come up with.

Larry

Ut Oh 2ndCrusade is having a Kaniption Fit. Seems the Truth is getting to His Craw and He is Lashing out.

Larry

Isn't that interesting, Larry. Thanks!

Ut Oh 2ndCrusade is having a Kaniption Fit. Seems the Truth is getting to His Craw and He is Lashing out.

Larry

"Truth, you can't handle the truth"

Name that movie!

Larry: leave it to the Guardian to print that story. As I recall, it was one of the few established papers to voice continual and steady oppostion to the invasion of Iraq.

Google retards and conspriacy theories while your at it and let me know what you come up with.


BTW - Larry you still thinking Zawrqauri is still alive.

I just watched it the other day 2ndCrusade. It was When Jack Nicolsons Character was being grilled in a Military Court by Tom Cruise and Jack Nicolson's CHaracter lost it on the witness stand.

Larry

2ndCrusade until I see Proof REAL Proof that Zarqawi is Dead NOPE still alive.

Larry

Did someone just use Guardian and established paper in the same comment?

Yav You are quite welcomed.

Larry

Larry
Yea thats a great movie, made once upon a time before Cruise went over the edge.

A Few Good Men.

Larry

2ndCrusade until I see Proof REAL Proof that Zarqawi is Dead NOPE still alive.

Larry


Hmmmmm, I guess he's just tired of doing the press releases and video's.

You're right 2. Anyone who doesn't think there was an organised conspiracy to invade Iraq long before 9/11 truly is retarded.

Larry
I think Zarqawi was moved to CFO of Air America to right the ship.

Sagmain:
The conspriacy theory comment was a general one directed to so many who come to this site ie Larry thinking Zarqawi's still alive, 9/11 etc.

To your point, do I think there was people in the government wanting to overthrow Saddam. Well hell yea, regime change in Iraq was policy even during the Clinton years. But you must realize that our government has plans to overthrow/invade various countries, just in case they are needed. There's people in the Defense Dept./Military who plan shit like that for a living.

That was LAME!!

Try another one.

....But you must realize that our government has plans to overthrow/invade various countries, just in case they are needed. There's people in the Defense Dept./Military who plan shit like that for a living.

Then why didn't Bush/41 go all the way in to Bagdhad when he had the chance? Wouldn't that have been the best oportunity to do so? Perhaps it was because he was smart enough to know the absolute mess he'd have on his hands if he did? Face it...PNAC is in full effect with Bush's blessing. How does it feel to support a neo-con agenda using the tradegy of 9/11 to enable it? Outing Valerie Plame was the only comeback they had for Joe Wilson exposing their lie.

You're right Number 2. I wonder which department in the government took on the task of lying to the American people and the world about the reasons for invading Iraq. I'd like to know who planned shit like that for a living, so our guys could go over under false pretenses and die?

BTW, it was Clinton's policy to "contain" Saddam, and he seemed to do a good job of it, despite what the revisionists might want to say.

Of course Armitage's statements weren't true. What HAVE we heard from the Bushies that IS true?

You fruitcakes just cant stand the fact that you cant nail Cheney on this.
BTW - Richard Armitage wasn't exactly considered part of your so called Bush criminal gang. But spin away nitwits!

Posted by 2ndCrusade at 2006-09-14 11:52 PM |

You don't have a clue dude. Richard Armatige is one of the members and signers of PNAC (Plan for a New American Century)- the one's who PLANNED the whole Iraq debacle and all the other crap.

Other signers include Donald Rumsfield, Paul Wolfowitz (former Asst. Sec Def), and several other Bush administration officials.

Find out what you're talking about before you spout off.

SAGMAIN

I wonder which department in the government took on the task of lying to the American people and the world about the reasons for invading Iraq. I'd like to know who planned shit like that for a living . . .

The answer to your question is the Executive Branch

I think both Armitage and Fitzgerald are in quite a bit of trouble.

Rasta-
That's because you don't get your information directly from the real world.

You get your info from the odd netherland that sees Armitage's crime as somehow excusing the crimes of others.

Boyd, what do you mean?

Do you think it was responsible for both Armitage and Fitzgerald to let the public think that Rove and Cheney were the source of the leak?

Rasta-
They were. They leaked to other reporters.

Fitzgerald's case is that there was a concerted effort to discredit a critic by outing his CIA wife. It's a fairly strong case. That Armitage also leaked to Novak is if not beside the point, even tends to bolster the case.

You are being fed desperate garbage.

I truly fail to see that the information that ANOTHER member of the Bush Admin. floated the identity to a reporter is some kind of bonus to well, whomevers case your pushing.

I wondered how long it would take for otherwise decent folk to impugn the prosecutor. Took you a while.

Oohrah-
Did "we" also have "contingency plans" to place Osama's kill/capture on the low priority list?

oohrah-
Would you like a recent quote from that crazy leftist Ben Barnes?

Hell, I'll probably provide it just for sad kicks.

Because obstruction of justice is a crime Oohrah, that's why he is being held.

Doesn't help the cause much either, if you act like you are hiding something, and do things to obstruct an investigation, it sure makes it look like there is something to hide, doesn't it?

Oohrah Let me remind You of some Facts that You seem to forget, First of all there were 2 Senior White House people tat Leaked the Name of Valeie Plame to Robert Novak One was Karl Rove and the other Richard Armatidge. Secondly It was NOT the Democrats who presed for this Criminal Investiation. The one who Pressed for the Criminal Inquiry was None other than the CIA Themselves since they RIGHTLY Believed a Crime took place. There is NO Egg on any of either Fitzgerald nor the Democrats faces Oohrah so please do try again. The CIA Deamed that a Law had been broken and that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act had been Violated.

Larry

Fred Barnes...sorry.

"His death and/or capture is more for show than anything else."

Really?

Tell that to the families of the dead.

Bush just did.

Again.

The arrogance and stupidity of this man never ceases to amaze me.

Last week Bush repeatedly quotes Osama in his bid to inspire fear and keep the House and Senate. This week Osama's capture and/or death is a low priority.

He's a big fucking douchebag.

And for you to defend this big fucking douchebag sorta makes you one too, Oohrah.

The damage we are doing and can continue to do is NOT dependent on his capture.

What damage are you talking about?

The damage to the Taliban which is back and stronger and now in the drug trade?

The damage to Iraq which is now in civil war on its way to being an Islamic republic?

The damage to our own country and its reputation?

His death and/or capture is more for show than anything else. That said, I'd like to see the guy's DNA smeared over the rubble of some bombed out safehouse.

That would signal an end to the left's harping about OBL's whereabouts while providing US citizen's with a perceivable "win" or "progress" in the war on terror. You'd hate to see that, particularly in the next couple months, because it would benefit Bush. Am I wrong?

In reality, he's but one man. The damage we are doing and can continue to do is NOT dependent on his capture.

Posted by OohRah at 2006-09-15 07:57 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


That is pretrty fucking Funny. Dubya promised the Victims Families He would get Him now You have the audacity to say it would be all for Show. How much total Nonsense can You spew oohRah?? Come on wake up to the facts and the reality. Dubya does not want Osama Bin Laden because there are too much Bush/Bin Laden Family Loyalties. But to think that Capturing Him would only be for show is so much Balderdash. It would be the first time Dubya honored anything that He said He would do.

Larry

"he's but one man"

Cognitive dissonance rears it's ugly head yet again.

Ahhh, Fitzmas...Remember when you sissies thought that actually meant something.

Man, it's hard to keep track of all the limp wristed "gotcha" moments.

"Then why didn't Bush/41 go all the way in to Bagdhad when he had the chance? Wouldn't that have been the best oportunity to do so? Perhaps it was because he was smart enough to know the absolute mess he'd have on his hands if he did? Face it...PNAC is in full effect with Bush's blessing. How does it feel to support a neo-con agenda using the tradegy of 9/11 to enable it? Outing Valerie Plame was the only comeback they had for Joe Wilson exposing their lie.

Posted by center_of_left at 2006-09-15 01:20 AM"

Didn't Schwartzkopf get in trouble because he wanted to go all the way in and said it and had to backtrack because...Other nations didn't want the US to go to Baghdad. The goal was to remove Iraq from Kuwait but to do nothing more. I don't blame Bush I, I blame the other nations of the UN. Russia was very vocal about it-liberate Kuwait. That's all we (the UN) should do.

At that time, even Bush I, knew he wouldn't have support to take out Iraq. But, after 9/11, nobody could convince the US not to do anything against a terror-supporting nation. I think the UN is still struggling on how to deal with the US after 9/11.

lets go back in time and remember all of the leftistas here praising colin powell because he was not a real part of the bush administration..

we should listn to him...and lots of things where you thought he was anti bush...and armitage was even further away from the bush administration.....nothing proves this more than their silence during all this as rove and libby and cheney were being FALSLY ACCUSED......

so dont even think about coming out now and talking about how this is all the bush administration's doing......

just admit that in this case.....everyone on the left...

from schumer (who should be investigated for his part in some of this)....to every mouth on tv to larry on the retort...

WAS WRONG....

and if it was a crime if libby or rove did it....WHy isnt it a crime when we know it was someone else?

BLT We were NOT wrong Please do get some education upon the subject matter at hand. There were TWO Senior WhiteHouse Leakers Robert Novak was refering to. that Being Karl Rove and Richard Armatidge. Yes Dick CHeney is still in dutch so don't even THINK about saying He isn't. Last time I checked the investigation Continues and has NOT been wrapped up. So BLT Please do so ever try yet again.

Larry

nice spin larry in the face of this embarrassing, for the left and the attack dogs of the left, situation..........
again......why isnt armitage under the same assault as rove and libby......
could it be that fitzgerald isnt the all american prosecutor that schumer told us he was.......and he should be investigated himself if he knew and kept after rove.....ah..but those truths just dont matter to the left......thier silence and continued 'spin' proves it...

Replace ... ... ... ... with / / / / and it reads just like LZK.

BLT...

You continue to hoist the tired and false admonition that Armitage wasn't in the inner circle of the neo-cons, when the proof is just the opposite. Armitage was a signatory of the PNAC along with the rest of the neo-cabal. Its been posted over and over the last couple weeks as this story continues to play out.

You completely ignore that Novak is saying Armitage told him to write about Plame, saying that it wasn't the innocuous aside that he's currently been publically saying it was. This goes hand in hand with the known participation of Rove and Libby in also encouraging reporters to buy the White House's spin that the Wilson trip was a nepotic boondoggle, and not the non-partisan fact finding trip that it actually was.

And if you paid any attention at all, you'd realize that barring an admission from any of those three or another witness that each or any man knew that disclosing Plame's identity to non-security-cleared individuals was a violation of the law, then there can be no charges brought under the prevailing law! This has been known for sometime. The way the law is written, a person has to know they are violating the law in order to be charged under it, so unless confessions are forthcoming from any of the three, that isn't likely to happen. It still doesn't mean that their actions weren't damaging to this country and to those who serve undercover trying to protect us.

Novak's latest admission only paints Armitage with the same brush of purpose that both Rove and Libby are already known to have been painted by in testimony and e-mail records. It still shows a wanton disregard for this nation's interests for the sake of neo-con politics and spin.

why isnt armitage under the same assault as rove and libby......

Because he lied to Fitzgerald and underplayed his role in the entire scandal? This is what Novak is now saying. One of them is not telling the truth, so who is it, the conservatives best friend, or the neo in sheep's clothing?

BLT You wouldn't know the truth if it bit You on Your Hiney. Come out of the fog and into Reality.

Larry

larry......IM just proud you have your fat ass up and out of the bed this morning.....LOL

tony...okay so lets say that armitage was a big fan of bush...which it isnt....but anyway......what does that have to do with fitzgerald(and which democrats) and some of the media and colin powell all know who it really was and let not only the investigation go on that way as well as the left attacking bush each and every day.....and all just to push his rating down....

and now who is party over country?

anyway......libby may have lied on something about the case, granted, but he shouldnt have been there to have to lie in the first place...dont get me wrong...if he lied under oath he should pay the price.(unlike what the left says about BJ) but again.....how can the left still support an investigation by a prosecutor who KNEW WHO DID IT and still went after someone else....it doesnt make sense to me.....but I am sure some lefty will 'set me straight'

BLT...

Democrats have exactly a whooping ZERO to do with Fitz' investigation and anything that comes from it. He is an independent, Republican prosecuter appointed by the former head of Justice, Republican-Bush appointee John Ashcroft. The only thing that makes his investigation "partisan" is that those being investigated are all Republicans.

Until this shakes out, no one can answer the hows and whys yet. Since Novak and Armitage are telling different stories, its logical that one of them has been less than truthful to Fitzgerald, and I'm sure he'll investigate this possibility.

You act as though Armitage is a Democrat or anti-Bush patronage worker instead of the #2 man at State that he was. He sat behind Powell when he delivered the now discredited speech at the UN, so I don't see how Armitage is being viewed as unsympathetic to the Bush agenda.

You keep missing the point of the entire investigation: It was never about WHO the leakers were, it was about whether the leaker's intentions could be proved to violate the law (which they didn't, per my paragragh above), and whether members of the Administration knowingly divulged the existence of a covered US intelligence agent merely as a political ploy to impugn the credibility of her husband. This has been proven in spades, along with Libby's admission of being ordered by Cheney to undertake this endeavor. There is no witchhunt here, the White House ordered a scalping and those doing it were caught redhanded. Illegality can't be proven but complicity already has many times over based on the testimony already divulged by the prosecuter.

You act as though Armitage is a Democrat or anti-Bush patronage worker instead of the #2 man at State that he was. He sat behind Powell when he delivered the now discredited speech at the UN, so I don't see how Armitage is being viewed as unsympathetic to the Bush agenda.


* * * *

By saying that, TR, you betray your own ignorance on the subject. Armitage IS a democrat, and an anti-Bush worker who is a career state dept official. Armitage is wholly unsympathetic to the Bush agenda, and that's obvious in the way the press has rolled over on the story.

Stick to your 9/11 conspiracy stories, about how there was no plane at the Pentagon or that the WTC was blown up by guys who planted charges beforehand. You're more entertaining when you do that, though no more firmly planted in reality.

Still, this suits me. Let's throw Armitage in jail, and also bring charges against Colin Powell, who knew what was going on, and stayed quiet about it. Let's play the game exactly as the libs wanted to play it for the past year: Armitage leaked the name of an undercover agent with the CIA (never mind that she wasn't undercover)--putting her very life in danger!! (never mind she was a desk analyst at the time)-- So he should be executed for treason.

That strikes me as very, very fair.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

The Republifundie culture of corruption and lies gets another reality-based slap in the face.

Such a shame, they can't even keep their lapdog Bob Novak in line. They should have pushed Woodward harder: they already know Woodward is their bitch now.

Well, if it's true that Armitage is a conservative, call my--and his--bluff. Let's send him to jail for outing a CIA agent, and bring up Powell on charges too.

I know that when you guys thought it was Rove and Cheney who were the leakers here, you wanted to string 'em up. So let's do the same over at State.

Right...

PLEASE READ the 8.51 post! None of the three leakers is likely to be brought up on charges because the LAW DOESN'T APPLY UNLESS they literally confess!

Everyone was clammoring for Rove's and Libby's head until they actually read the law and saw that it is so narrowly written a person has to KNOW they are violating it for the law to apply! The latter points have been to the fact that now three separate individuals in high positions within the Bush government offered up the name of Valerie Plame as evidence to multiple reporters of the Administration's claims that Wilson's version of events was wrong, and the White House's was right in regards to Niger. In doing so, at the time of investigating WMD claims in Iraq, these men divulged the identity of a NOC and rendered her useless for future work as an undercover agent.

This is why the CIA asked for a criminal investigation, not Democrats or anyone outside the US Government. Repeating anything but the truth will not change the facts of this affair, and the denial of why this case is important only underscores the political calculus of Republicans that scream about leaked information they don't like publicized on one hand, while leaking damning information to neuter political attacks and endanger intelligence networks and personnel on the other. There's a name for this and its called hypocrisy.

"His death and/or capture is more for show than anything else. That said, I'd like to see the guy's DNA smeared over the rubble of some bombed out safehouse.

That would signal an end to the left's harping about OBL's whereabouts while providing US citizen's with a perceivable "win" or "progress" in the war on terror. You'd hate to see that, particularly in the next couple months, because it would benefit Bush. Am I wrong?

In reality, he's but one man. The damage we are doing and can continue to do is NOT dependent on his capture."
--OOHRAH

OOHRAH, if we killed OBL tommorrow, the left would just say it was some sort of conspiracy or lie, and that he was still alive somewhere.

RightIs - are you sure you're not really RightNut? You used to be fairly rational, at least some of the time, but you seem to have gone off the deep end. Has your husband been stealing your meds again?

Hey RIGHT WINGERS:

Valarie Plame was GIVEN the task of leading the CIA's effort in the search for WMD's in Iraq by none other than Bush himself.

She was pressured mightily BEFORE 9/11, and certainly after 9/11, to find SOME reason for going into Iraq. When she failed to find anything, after, yes, sending her husband, a highly respected former Ambassador, in search of WMD truth, both of them were targeted for NOT finding anything - after TWO YEARS !! Bush and Co. weren't after the truth. They were after Saddam regardless of the truth.

Armatige was one of the signers of the PNAC, as were Rumsfield, Wolfowitcz, and several other high level Bush administration members. Read Rumsfield and Wolfowitcz's testimony to Congress in 2002 in the leadup to war. AND Rumsfield threatened ANYONE with firing who worked on or even MENTIONED "Stage 4 - Post-Invasion Planning". The EXACT plan we needed to avoid the mess we're in now. Spin THAT !!

Dick Cheney: Sorry, Richard, but if you don't help us with this one, we're going to have to publish the pictures of Gannon giving you that Dirty Sanchez.

Richard Armitage: Geez, Dick, you're stepping on my neck here. You know I have a family! But you obviously got me by the short and curlies, so what do I need to do?

Dick: You're going to take the fall for outting Plame.

Richard: What?!? Couldn't that get me arrested?

Dick: Nah, you can just claim it was inadvertant. I'll get Novak to back you up, and you'll be fine.

Richard: Shit. Well, if that's how it's going to be....

Dick: You'll be fine.

*********
Dick: Get Novak on the phone.

Robert Novak: Yes Mr. Vice President?

Dick: We got a live one. Armitage is going to take the fall for Plame.

Robert: Well done, sir. How can I help?

Dick: He's going to claim it was inadvertant. Give it a few days, and then claim that he did it on purpose. He'll be screwed!

Robert: You got it, sir. Good job! Hey, are we still on for the bath house?

Dick: I wouldn't miss it, Robby Boy! I got a half-chub just thinking about it...

Big-
If there was no original crime, is he commiting a crime? Like I said, I don't know the legalities here. Just seems odd, that's all.

Posted by OohRah at 2006-09-15 08:01 AM

Nope, lying under oath and obstructing justice don't depend on any actual crime being committed. Look at Martha Stewart. She did jail, even though she didn't illegally trade.

If my life was threatened with two potentially fatal circumstances, and if I were given the chance to chose which one I would have to suffer, here are the choices,

1. Terminal cancer of the liver ( a very unpleasant and painful occurance)

OR

2.Remaining time on Earth to be spent with the Prince of Darkness ,ie Robert Novak,

Not one moment of hesitation would stop my choice of # 1 above.

I can not envision spending any time at all in the presence of Mr Novak. The expression on his face suggests that he may be suffering from a very severe case of unexploded flatulence. Can you imagine anything more frightening than awakening in the morning and finding him in bed with you. If he somehow found a woman to marry him, she comes just slightly below Mother Teresa in compassion.
Should he consider cremation upon his death it is only fair to warn those entrusted with that task that the contents may be fatal to anyone within ten feet of his remains.

This man (?) is so revolting that lazy old me will even get up to change the TV channel manually if the remote is not immediately at hand.