Cornyn: Release the tape, Harry

This stupid. There’s no indication that Reid has done anything wrong. I believe as part of general legal procedures, the tapes are not to be released for public consumption until after the trial is over (or they are played as part of a trial). Fitzgerald recently had to file a motion to ask for the release of four calls for members of the Illinois State Senate to hear as part of their impeachment hearings.

This transparency things is BS. Tapes like these aren’t usually released until the trial is over for fear that they might somehow impede the court proceedings. The Feds have not charged Reid or given an indication he did anything wrong.

The only reason why someone would want Reid’s tapes released now (aside from general curiosity) is to score political points against Reid and the Dems, or more probable, to score points by accusing them of having something to hide when they don’t go to the court to ask that the tapes be released.

Again, just stupid partisan games.

Tom_Shipley on January 7, 2009 at 2:41 PM

No, I’m not talking about my post.

The problem with this kind of thing is that many of you have this misguided belief that just attacking your opponent will strengthen your party.

You saw how Dems attacked Bush and Republicans for the past 8 years and think “turn-a-bout” is fair play.

Problem is, the things the Dems attacked the Republicans over were based on some sort of reality. The “bush lied” line was based on the fact that Bush told the American people that we had to invade Iraq right now because of the threat his WMDs posed. Well, he didn’t have WMDs and was no where near the threat he was made out to be.

Criticism over Plame affair was based on the fact that three members of the Bush administration told reporters that Plame worked for the CIA, outing here. That’s fact.

The culture of corruption charge was based on the fact that, multiple republican lawmakers were indicted and convicted of corruption. The incompetence tag was based on failures in Iraq and New Orleans.

Now, with Spitzker and Blagojevich, there’s starting to become of string of Dem corruption charges. But when you start trying to tie in other people like Reid and Obama with NO EVIDENCE, it’s going to backfire (and I’m more than willing to see Reid go, never been a fan of his). But to try and tie him to this scandal because he had a conversation with Blago is just stupid.

The public roundly rejected negative campaigning during 2008 (see Coleman, Norm). If you guys want to keep up this (as Gingrich would call it) mindless opposition, go nuts. But it’s not how you’re going to get your party back into power. A small percentage of you guys LOVE it. But, in the end, it’ll just turn into a circle jerk if you not careful.

Tom_Shipley on January 7, 2009 at 3:12 PM

2) WMDs have been found, just not in the quantities predicted before the war, as have mothballed WMD programs.

They were?

1) Plame hadn’t been covert for years, after being one of the darlings of the left. Even the author of the statute in question stated that it did not cover Plame.

The author of the statute was wrong. According to her CIA employment history and the statute, Plame was covert.

2) There is ample evidence that many people were aware of Plame’s involvement in the CIA and talked about it.

Fitzgerald’s team looked into this claim and concluded this was not the case. That Plame was covert and she and the CIA were taking proactive steps to conceal her identity.

The so called failures in Iraq grew out of mostly unrealistic expectations painted by the media.

You’re right, it was the media who claimed we’d be greeted as liberators and that the war would pay for itself. Stupid media…

Tom_Shipley on January 7, 2009 at 3:50 PM

On this board, he is a contrarian on everything!

I am a natural contrarian. And, really, the Reid tape thing isn’t that big a deal. But it just seems certain conservatives are just hell-bent on attacking EVERYTHING a Dem does. If so, it’ll be a long four years and I frankly don’t think it’ll be beneficial to Republicans.

Tom_Shipley on January 7, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Saddam used WMD’s against Iran, so the claim that he had no WMD’s is a lie.

That’s right. The people who keep calling Bush a liar are the ones actually lying.

It’s amazing either A) how dumb or B) how dishonest some people can be.

The weapons Saddam used in the Iranian war and indeed against the Kurds were no longer a threat by the time the 2003 invasion rolled around. The U.S. eventually discovered that he gave up his chemical warfare program in 1991 and his nuclear program in 1995.

Any remaining WMDs had decayed to the point that they were not a threat.

The “lie” came when Bush and Co. (most notably Colin Powell at the UN) said the “know” Saddam has WMDs and that the threat is so great that we need to invade now. Rumsfeld actually said “we know where they are.” The lie was that the Bush administration conveyed a level of certainty about the WMD threat that they could not possibly have had, considering they did not exist and that other CIA intelligence has come forth since the invasion (but was available to Bush and Co. at the time) that showed Saddam did not have WMDs.

That’s the lie.

Now, if the media had been doing their job, those questions might have been raised before the election when they could have done some good. But the dirt will eventually come out.

Here’s the thing: Obama/Rezko HAS been reported on — a lot. But there’s been no evidence found of wrongdoing. Same with Blago. For all the talk of Obama not being lily white, I’ve yet to see one shred of solid evidence that shows he’s done something “corrupt.” It’s all innuendo.

The closest thing there’s been is the Rezko land deal, but there’s nothing illegal about what he did, and there’s been no evidence that he did any special favor for Rezko.

Tom_Shipley on January 8, 2009 at 8:14 AM

So you know better what the legislation says than the guy who wrote it.

Well, the person in question is a woman, and no, I don’t know it better, but I know it as well. And when she made her claim that Plame was not covert, she didn’t know what Plame’s employee history at the CIA was. She had no real insight into whether Plame was covert or not.

Yes Plame was covert at one time, but that was a decade before this incident. She had been operating in the open since then.

Dude, are you dense. Read the link I provide. Actually, I know you probably won’t, so here’s the important part:

On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agendy (CIA) as an operations office in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.

While assigned to the CPC, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship with the United States.

The law the protects agents states the US must be taking “affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States” and that the agent must have traveled overseas within the past 5 years.

Plame was covert.

BTW, if it was so obvious that the law applied, why was the only thing Fitz could gin up was a case of he said he said with a reporter?

Because the law also states that the people accused of outing an agent must have “knowingly” outed her. Fitzgerald said he could not prove that — in part because of Libby’s obstruction.

We were greeted as liberators. I guess you missed all that.

Yes, you’re right. I had forgotten that the US military was showered with flowers and candy, not bullets and IEDs. I don’t know how that had slipped my mind.

Tom_Shipley on January 8, 2009 at 9:46 AM

Thanks for proving my case for me Shitley. The above position is not covert. Maybe you should try to study a little before talking about things you know nothing about.

Boy, just when I didn’t think Mark could make himself look like more of an idiot, he manages to do so…

Now, I assume you also read this:

While assigned to the CPC, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship with the United States.

So, basically you’re saying you know more about Plame’s covert status than the CIA does.

Again, let me remind you of this gem:

Shitley has his own version of facts. That these facts are inventions of his far left friends doesn’t bother him. He likes them better than reality based facts.

It’s just dumbfounding how much of an idiot you are.

Tom_Shipley on January 8, 2009 at 10:48 AM