SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (714399)11/21/2005 1:18:42 PM
From: Srexley  Read Replies (1) of 769670
 
"you want to re-ask your question?"

I asked the question correctly on my 2nd post when I saw (from your answer) that I did not ask it properly the 1st time. You have been dodging it ever since. I think this kind of run around is fun for you.

"he is free to bring charges for any crimes he may uncover."

This is what he is doing, and I don't like it. When there is no evidence of any crime, I don't think they should be able to do this. Many do, obviously. Including yourself. I think it is a travesty of justice to spend millions of dollars and countless man hours of effort to try to find "criminal" wrongdoing when there is no evidence of a crime.

"There *is* a law against revealing the classified identity of a CIA agent"

Wasn't it supposed to be about outing a covert cia operative (which Plame is not)? Maybe Wilson should be investigated. My point is that once you figure out that she is not covert (which should have been pretty easy), maybe it is not worth the time and effort to search for a crime. And when even your stated reason (and the one that Fitzgerald alluded to in his news conference) was deemed not to have happened AND Fitzgerald mistakenly stated that Libby was the 1st person to have given the name to reporters, it seems like fair minded people would say its time to drop it. But Fitzgerald and the haters want to keep it in the news. Makes our President look bad, and that is reason enough for these folks to justify it. I wonder how many more they can jail and charge for this non crime.

"there is no way I could definitively answer you question of whether I though Libby (or anyone else) was guilty of the crimes charged so far,"

Neither can I. As soon as you said somthing to that effect, I realized my question was incorrect and restated it. But you like to play dodgeball and string things out, so here we are. Thank you for answering my question (even if it took 4 or 5 posts for you to do it). Now I know where you stand, which was why I asked the question to begin with.

"SURELY you do not make a habit of 'convicting' people solely on the basis of your thin perusal of newspaper headlines????????????"

Have you seen a scrap of evidence that I have done this? The sentence above is a good example of your spin and how you attempt to paint me as something I am not. In fact I fight pretty hard against the folks who do this. You must have seen some of this in my posts over the years.

Be honest and straightforward, Buddy. And then we could actually communicate in a concise way instead of your preferred way of making a two or three post discussion into a 10 or 12 post circus.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News