Politicspoliticsbushtraitorcriminaldeathpenalty

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:23 AM

 

Bush Senior calls Bush Junior an "insidious traitor"

The elder Bush, a former CIA Director himself, is known to have said in 1999, that “those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources" are "the most insidious of traitors.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0606/S00195/karl-rove-and-bush-most-insidious-traitors.htm

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/28/valerie-plame-cia-outing-colossally-stupid/



30 replies, 2154 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bush Senior calls Bush Junior an "insidious traitor" (Original post)
Satanica Mar 2015 OP
graham4anything4HC45 Mar 2015 #1
Frederick55 Mar 2015 #3
DisCussOr Mar 2015 #7
ibtruthin Mar 2015 #25
graham4anything4HC45 Mar 2015 #11
Banshee 3 Actual Mar 2015 #6
RATFINK_5.0 Mar 2015 #2
Banshee 3 Actual Mar 2015 #4
Satanica Mar 2015 #5
Banshee 3 Actual Mar 2015 #8
Satanica Mar 2015 #9
Banshee 3 Actual Mar 2015 #12
Satanica Mar 2015 #16
Banshee 3 Actual Mar 2015 #17
LineLineLineLineReply K
Satanica Mar 2015 #10
Banshee 3 Actual Mar 2015 #13
Satanica Mar 2015 #14
Banshee 3 Actual Mar 2015 #15
Satanica Mar 2015 #18
Banshee 3 Actual Mar 2015 #19
Satanica Mar 2015 #20
Banshee 3 Actual Mar 2015 #21
Satanica Mar 2015 #22
Banshee 3 Actual Mar 2015 #23
Satanica Mar 2015 #24
Sassyspop Mar 2015 #27
Satanica Mar 2015 #28
Sassyspop Mar 2015 #30
rahtruelies Mar 2015 #26
Zutak Mar 2015 #29

Response to Satanica (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:31 AM

1. There should be a law that NO CIA operatives are allowed to be President

Same with Generals.
There should be a separation between spies, war generals and elected officials.
Because it is like having inside information the American public does not know about.

Without Bush41, the world might have been perfect

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:45 AM

3. "Without Bush41, the world might have been perfect"

 

Yeah! Because George HW Bush is responsible for all the bad stuff that has happened since the beginning of time!

Damn him and the rest of those damn Bushes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frederick55 (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:59 AM

7. OK. Good idea. Shall we start by damning the infamous Nazi moneybuck man Prescott Bush?

Or do you think we should go back further? There is, as you know, lots more Bush scuzz in the era before Nazi-profiteer Prescott got all jiggy with Adolf Hitler and The Boys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisCussOr (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:28 AM

25. LOL...Let not stop there, lets count all the sins of politicians fathers...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frederick55 (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:04 AM

11. Just the last 60 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:57 AM

6. BRILLIANT Graham- your logic George Washington, Andy Jackson,

Benjamin Harrison
Chester A Arthur
Andrew Johnson
Franklin Pierce
James Garfield
Rutherford Hayes
Zachary Taylor
William Harrison
US Grant
Eisenhower

all banned from Office due to your deciding who can be president

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satanica (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:31 AM

2. Traitor, maybe. Insidious, yes ...

That will remain throughout Bush W. LEGACY ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satanica (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:53 AM

4. Except the truth (something you never post) is it wasnt him, It was Richard Armitage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5326130.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/armitage-on-cia-leak-i-screwed-up/

So basically you continue to post lies, you know they are lies because this isnt the first time and you continue your poutrage™

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:56 AM

5. We have already been through this

 

Armitage thought he was the first leaker because he wasn't aware that Scooter Libby leaked to Judith Miller

The special prosecutor in the case told us that scooter was the first leaker, and that Armitage didn't know about Scooter Libby's leak

Are you now telling me that you know more about the case than the special prosecutor ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satanica (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:00 AM

8. Yes, we have and You're wrong yet again, the man admitted it

please continue the Poutrage™, it amuses

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:00 AM

9. Lol

 

So you are claiming you know more about the case then the special prosecutor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satanica (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:06 AM

12. LOL is right you're so jacked up its funny as hell



You outright lied when you said Bush 41 called Bush 43 a Liar. Therefore YOU have no credibility

Your Poutrage™ these last weeks is amusing to watch. Few posters get so wound up from having gotten a hide that when they come back they run amok. most of us handle a hide like Adults, YMMV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:34 AM

16. I never

 

Claimed that Bush Senior call Bush Junior a liar

That's the voices in your head again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satanica (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:36 AM

17. Again you're a Liar and its been proved, so continue the poutrage™

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:03 AM

10. K

 

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satanica (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:08 AM

13. Again for the Obtuse- 2005 article by you, 2006 articles by me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:28 AM

14. So answer the question

 

Do you think you know more than the special prosecutor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satanica (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:31 AM

15. No the answer to your poutrage™ is I posted up to date links you didnt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:40 AM

18. That's not new information

 

The special prosecutor was well aware of Richard Armitage telling Novak about Valerie

In fact he addressed it in the press conference

So you can quit acting like it's new updated information, I provided factual links from the special prosecutor

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satanica (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:43 AM

19. Again you keep mentioning older links I used 2006. You Lose Yet again

No the answer to your poutrage™ is I posted up to date links you didnt

and typically you cant handle it

Which is more likely to be the updated correct information?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5326130.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/armitage-on-cia-leak-i-screwed-up/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #19)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:49 AM

20. Do you realize

 

That you did not post updated information, but the link I provided proves the special prosecutor knew about Armitage ?

This is a perfect example of how the right-wing operates, they are provided factual evidence, and reject it out right for the delusions in their head

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satanica (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:50 AM

21. No the answer to your poutrage™ is I posted up to date links you didnt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:52 AM

22. No you didn't

 

The links you provided have no additional information

They were simply posted at a later date

No updated information in the links you provided

Here's a very simple question that you will refuse to answer

Did the special prosecutor address to Armitage a leak in his press conference ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satanica (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:53 AM

23. Yes I did

the answer to your poutrage™ is I posted up to date links you didnt

and typically you cant handle it

Which is more likely to be the updated correct information?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5326130.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/armitage-on-cia-leak-i-screwed-up/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #23)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:59 AM

24. Why do you think they're up-to-date?

 

They contain no new information

I will ask again, just to make you look foolish, did the special prosecutor address Richard Armitage leak in his press conference

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satanica (Reply #24)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:15 AM

27. You are on this crap AGAIN...

 

I took your lunch money 25 Feb on this issue....IT WAS ARMITAGE....go back to our previous discussion.
You keep using debunked sources..Fitzy NEVER charged Libby with leaking Plame....

There is a verifiable timeline and YOURS has been debunked and you keep using outdated sourcing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sassyspop (Reply #27)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:17 AM

28. Perfect

 

Another person who thinks they know more about the case then the special prosecutor who investigated it

Can you answer a simple question for me?

Did the special prosecutor address Armitage leaking in his press conference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satanica (Reply #28)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:01 PM

30. THIS is your mistake grasshopper....The timeline.

 

You refuse to get that what Fity said in a PC was put to rest with the Armitage admission...
Furthermore...IF Fitzy had the goods on Libby....why no CHARGES against Libby let alone conviction of Libby on outing the desk jockey??

Timeline, new info AFTER the Presser you keep relying on, and EVIDENCE presented debunk your stale and for some reason, crazy person like blindness to the facts of who outed Plame......the investigation did NOT stop at the point in time you keep referencing....we all get you wish it had so it was Libby that was the culprit....that's NOT how it played out.

We get it. You will ignore ANYTHING after that PC...regardless of admissions, court proceedings, court decisions...HISTORY...but you are litigating facts that are not now, and were not at the time accurate. A Press Conference does NOT equal guilt.
WHERE ARE THE CHARGES or Conviction??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satanica (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:32 AM

26. If The Leader does it

Its NOT Treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satanica (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:19 AM

29. The headline is a Lie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspoliticsbushtraitorcriminaldeathpenalty