Greg wrote:

From: "-=jd=-"
Organization: Little... If any...
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:55:07 GMT
Subject: (OT) The Plame-Blame-Game

On Sun 30 Oct 2005 05:30:32p, Greg wrote in
message :



From: "-=jd=-"
Organization: Little... If any...

{snippage}

There was no need to protect Cheney from any criminal investigation at
all since he hadn't done anything illegal. Even before Libby started
the "he said, she said" spinning and fabricating that was described in
the indictments, there was no need to protect Cheney. That being said,
for Cheney to refute the fabrications in Wilson's report is hard-ball
politics, but not illegal. If it was illegal to "out" Plame, then Libby
was the primary suspect, above all others. Apparently, it *wasn't*
illegal to "out" Plame.

True, but he may have wanted to hide Cheney's role in outing Plame, even
tho it wasn't illegal. But I think he didn't know it wasn't illegal.


Libby may have tried to mitigate political fall-out, but I can't recall
Cheney ever shying away from bare-knuckle politics.



{snippage}

The only things mentioned in the indictments are the various
conversations and personal-notes between Libby and a given reporter --
two-person conversations with no other witnesses. The notes even stem
from the same two-person conversations. Fitz will need "other evidence"
if he doesn't want to be painted with the "Ronnie Earle" brush by his
detractors...

Okay, there were the notes and also, I think, conflicting testimony from
other witnesses, the journalists.


That's the two-person conversations -- Each conversation was between Libby
and a reporter. Libby's statements conflicting with a reporter and a
reporter's statement conflicting with Libby's. If it goes to trial, Libby
will likely assert "He-Said/She-Said", even though the reporter's accounts
will likely agree -- and not in Libby's favor...




Okay jd, it looks a though we continue to view the same facts from
opposite angles.


Shocked! Shocked, I Am!!


Gotta run - I have a hot thread going with DXace over
dingleberries.


Our topical preferences differ in ways I had not considered!



I LOVE shortwave radio!



When the ionosphere cooperates, I do too! Well, I wouldn't say *love*, but
I am deeply in "like" with SWL...


-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

With a little work you might make a good liberal.

There is no such thing as a good liberal.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

DX Ace - Yes there is . . .
Go Visit a Cemetery ! ) ~ RHF

dxAce wrote:


There is no such thing as a good liberal.

dxAce
Michigan
USA





Oh, c'mon, Steve, that's not true. There are several members here
who are not only very liberal, but decent people, who can disagree
without invoking one's family tree, or mulitiplicative proclivities.

Truth is, that I'm a bit more conservative than most, to the degree
that Rush Limbaugh is too liberal for me, and yet, most of my closest
friends are very far to the left. And in the last two decades, despite
sharp disagreements, there have been no shootings.

Of course, I'm the only one that's armed....

It's not a matter of political preference that determines the matter.
It's how afraid of the other side one is that determines the stridency
of the argument, and the depth to which people of opposing views can
find unrelated common ground.

Cases in point: the number of us here who disagree in extreme
measures politically, but who find no difficulty in being of good
nature, and enjoying common interests. Or even the political discussions
themselves.

They are few, granted, but they do exist.



Here endeth the rant.

:::returns to 7030+ to find something that isn't Gene Scott's hat.:::

memberfdic

From: dxAce
Organization: The Listener at the Gates of Dawn
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 18:16:31 -0500
Subject: (OT) The Plame-Blame-Game


There is no such thing as a good liberal.

dxAce
Michigan
USA


Don't make me come up there.

Greg