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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (144076)10/22/2005 3:05:08 AM
From: KLP  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793957
 
Do you think there might be any merit in this? Who is former prosecutor Joseph E. diGenova? Could he be right?

[KLP Note; Did find that the Left blogs don't like diGenova, that diGenova was a US Attorney under Reagan, and that he and his wife are personal friends of Robert Novak......}

If the CIA is the real villain in the case, then almost everything we have been told about the scandal by the media is wrong. What’s more, it means that the CIA, perhaps the most powerful intelligence agency in the U.S. Government, was deliberately trying to undermine the Bush Administration’s Iraq War policy. The liberals who are anxious for indictments of Bush Administration officials in this case should start paying attention to this aspect of the scandal. They may be opposed to the Iraq War, but since when is the CIA allowed to run covert operations against an elected president of the U.S.?



To: LindyBill who wrote (144076)10/22/2005 8:28:49 AM
From: Tom Clarke  Respond to of 793957
 
Some officials could get indicted because of faulty or inconsistent memories

Hillary Clinton gave inconsistent testimony in the Travel Office affair, but was not prosecuted because it couldn't be established that she deliberately lied. Memory gets hazy when answering questions after months go by.