I try NOT to --- they tend to leak!
Posted By: :-o on 2008-09-04
In Reply to: well have you ever held a baby? "grasping" is the word of the day - Emily Ayn
{
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
That actually does look like an Obama camp leak....(sm)
but for good reason. Obama wants transparency. It would work to his favor for it to be known that he urged Bush for quick action. He's putting pressure on Bush. I think the point of the exercise is that when these things don't get done in a timely fashion or legislation cannot get passed, it puts the spotlight on the ones who would obstruct it.
If I'm not mistaken, they actually do record oval office meetings. I think it was originally started to prevent misquotes. They just don't let them out until years later.
Bush involved in leak scandal
Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal
Near the end of a round table discussion on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos dropped this bomb:
Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.
This would explain why Bush http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/08/17/bush_plame/index1.html>spent more than an hour answering questions from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. It would also fundamentally change the dynamics of the scandal. President Bush could no longer claim he was merely a bystander who wants to “get to the bottom of it.” As Stephanopoulos notes, if Bush played a direct role it could make this scandal completely unmanageable.
Dems leak Palin's SSN, Fred on Fire, Newt
A few tidbits from Rush today. Compare Nancy Pelosi to Newt--not even a contest!
Mr. Newt Rips NBC Reporter
Gingrich fights back
Fred Thompson's speech at RNC video)
I would like to believe that, but I tend to look at
nm
*We tend to believe our party*...sm
Re-reading my postI can see how I misspoke. What I was trying to get across, and my post was not directed at you BTW, was that psychologically people tend to put more trust in and defend the party they support by default. Whether you are a registered republican or not, you support the republican party, and I glean that from your statement *I have not seen a Democrat I could vote for in good conscious.* And whether you are aware of it or not, you defend that party tooth and nails on here, and there is nothing wrong with that if they follow your belief systems.
Good for you for criticizing Foley, and any other person who is inappropriate with the pages. I have said here before I do not know why Studds didn't stepdown and more importantly why he was reelected. I'm against his having a relationship with a page as much as I am Foley.
As to Juanita, I understand you are personally connected with her in some way, so you will obviously be more sensitive to her situation than I will. I am looking at the big picture. Since she did not come forward in 1978, the statue of limitations gone, all she can do is tell her story, and Clinton has a story. Like I said her story is believable. She has proven genuine and not making claims out of spite or for money. I think it was Brunson who posted ladies that Clinton was supposed to have either raped or sexually harrassed earlier this year. Out of them all, Juanita was the only one I believe has substance.
I disagree with you again; when it was brought up that conservative presidents were accused of rape below, it was rebutted with *that was only one time...but..but..but..* That's rationalizing and minimizing.
I know your mind is made up about Vincent Foster, but this is what's on snopes.com. What I find interesting is the *suicide note.*
White House deputy counsel Vince Foster committed suicide on the night of 20 July 1993 by shooting himself once in the head, a day after he contacted his doctor about his depression. A note in the form of a draft resignation letter was found in the bottom of his briefcase a week after his death. (Note that this letter was not, as is often claimed, a suicide note. It was Foster's outline for a letter of resignation.) Foster cited negative Wall Street Journal editorials about him. He was also upset about the much-criticized role of the counsel's office in the controversial firing of seven White House travel office workers.
On 10 October 1997, special prosecutor Kenneth Starr released his report on the investigation into Foster's death, the third such investigation (after ones conducted by the coroner and Starr's predecessor, Robert B. Fiske) of the matter. The 114-page summary of a three-year investigation concluded that Foster shot himself with the pistol discovered in his right hand. There was no sign of a struggle, nor any evidence he'd been drugged or intoxicated or that his body had been moved.
If Foster had been murdered or if unanswered questions about his death remained, Starr would have been the last person to want to conclude the investigation prematurely. Or are we to believe Starr is part of the cover up, too? And if we buy into the conspiracy theory, what are we expected to believe? That a group of professional killers capable of carrying out dozens of murders all over the world shot Vince Foster, then clumsily dumped him in a park (after he had bled out), planted a gun he didn't own in his hand (without bothering to press his fingerprints onto it), amateurishly forged a suicide note (in several different handwritings), and then seriously expected the nation would believe it was suicide? Claims too crazy to believe are never discounted when they're needed to help establish a conspiracy, of course.
Oh, and did you check out the Bush body count??
I tend to believe the Mayans.
I tend to believe the Word of God, it is
NM.
I'm in too. I admit I tend to just
In part because it seems that some people respond to who is posting and not what they are saying. But I am game for giving it a fair go. It only seems fair that we level the posting playing field and accept cyber-responsibility for what we post here.
I tend to think, after reading this, t hat you are the one out of touch
with Jewish teachings. It would seem to me that rabbis saying these things would carry a lot more weight. As far as the number who attended, that doesn't seem important. It is what they are saying that carries import. I don't think you speak for the Jewish community.
Bill and Hillary do tend to wind....
that's correct.
I tend to agree with the greediness of people...
any responsible homeowner would READ the contract. We sat down with our mortgage company and read each item line by line so we could fully understand what we were signing. I don't feel sorry for those who bought and now claim they didn't understand what they were signing, didn't realize they had an ARM loan or that a balloon payment was coming up. Also, anyone who does get bailed out should have to put up 20% or more in cash the next time they try to buy a home. Too many people used their home as a piggy bank, thinking it was free money.
|
