About Me

Name: Buddy
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Fitzpatrick Should be on Trial not Libby

Posted by Buddy on Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:14:05 AM

FITZPATRICK SHOULD BE ON TRIAL NOT LIBBY

CNN article - August 30, 2006:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/30/leak.armitage/index.html

On February 12, 2007:

Bob Woodward testified that "former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. agent to him in June 2003, but that Lewis Libby Jr. said nothing about the agent when Mr. Woodward talked to him two weeks later," David Stout reported in the New York Times.

This is the Bob Woodward of Deep Throat fame in the Nixon Break-in Scandal.

New York Times August 30, 2006:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washington/30armitage.html?ex=1314590400&en=371

ecd094bbd6ae6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

The above two lines are ONE url, not two.

Here is Novack himself (the reporter to whom and by whom Valerie Plame's name was mentioned) in an article dated September 14, 2006:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2006/09/14/armitages_leak

The title of this article is, "Say It Isn't So, Colin!"  Apparently, he never has.  If he has I am unaware of it.

http://www.redstate.com/stories/the_white_house/whats_that_smell

This article starts out by saying, "As everyone and their kitchen cat now knows, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage was Robert Novak's apparently unwitting source for the rather uninteresting information that former Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife was a low-level CIA employee, and that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew this perfectly well for the last three years while he pursued other administration officials who did not know that Mr. Armitage was the original leaker..."

Short blog by Governor Whitman (Governor of New Jerssy):  

http://www.mypartytoo.com/blog/?storyId=1259

I could go on.  What burns me is what Gov. Whitman says about the Special Prosecutor.  He is a person with unlimited funds and almosty unlimited power who does not have to answer to anyone.  What a nightmare. It reminds me of the Inquisition and the Grand Inquisitor. "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton, British historian of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Here is another great summary of the perfidy of the entire process:

http://www.qoae.net/posts/1158596616.shtml

There are many more sources.  However, as a lawyer I am stunned by the admission by silence of Mr. Fitzgerald, the Special Prosecutor.  An admission by silence is a well recognized legal method of proof surely known to Mr. Fitzgerald.  

 

 

 

 

 

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE WRONG PERSON IS ON TRIAL

Posted by Buddy on Friday, February 16, 2007 1:12:18 PM
    Libby Prosecution 

    1.  Valerie Plame was not outed by a member of the Bush
Administration
    2.  Even if she she had been it would not have been a crime.  
     3.  The one who actually told Novack about her was Armitage, a  bureaucrat within the State
Department who is a lefty.    
   4.  COLLIN POWELL KNEW BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION STARTED THAT
ARMITAGE WAS THE PERSON (LEAKER) WHO TOLD NOVACK ABOUT PLAME.
    5.  FITZGERALD, THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, KNEW THAT IT WAS ARMITAGE  WHO DISCLOSED THE IDENTITY OF PLAME ALMOST FROM THE OUTSET.
   7.  Incredibly, millions of dollars were spent, lives ruined, the President harried (which was the point of it all), others cast under a cloud of suspicion (Karl Rove being called to testify five times before the grand jury), one person indicted for having a poor memory (Libby) with democrats and the media pounding the President and his administration unmercifully for however many years it went on when it was known by the principals engaged in this character assassination that there was nothing to
investigate; that there had been no crime committed and even if there had it was NOT committed by a member of the Bush Administration.
  8. It is Fitzgerald, Powell, Armitage, Novack, and any other people who engaged in this enormous charade with knowledge that no crime had been committed and that the leaker was not one of those being investigated who should now be on trial. The worst of the lot to me is Fitzgerald because he is a lawyer and has a duty to pursue the truth as does every prosecutor and has as great a duty to the accused as to the public. A prosecutor has a duty to disclose any evidence of innocence of anyone accused.  IN THIS CASE FITZGERALD KNEW BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION STARTED  THAT NO CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED AND THAT THE "LEAKER" WAS NOT SOMEONE ASSOCIATED POLITICALLY WITH BUSH BUT WAS AN OPPONENT OF THE WAR AND THE PRESIDENT. 
    9.  Imagine yourself on trial for a crime that had actually never been committed because what was done was legal; that the act itself, even if a crime, had not been committed by you; and that THE PROSECUTOR AND THOSE SURROUNDING HIM KNEW ALL OF THE ABOVE.
    10. I hope the horror of this is not lost on any of you.  WHY HAS FITZGERALD NOT BEEN ARRESTED AND CHARGED?
    I would love to have feed back on this.  Is there anything Democrats will not do to destroy Bush and get back into power?  
   What do you think of a prosecutor who would pursue a case in which he knew that no crime had been committed and that the persons being investigated had nothing to do with it anyway.  It is the prosecutor that should be on trial.  This is prosecutorial abuse of the first order. 

Here is what Fred Thompson has to say about the special prosecutor.  He is far more understanding than I.  

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/14/ex_senator_prosecutor_is_out_of_control/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Global Warming Myth

Posted by Buddy on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:17:41 PM
 

I had to rise to the bait that you believe that few rational people do not believe that there is global warming.  Please read http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm  

You may not be convinced although I was before I read the report but you will, at least, see that there are a great many scientists that do not believe it.  The vast majority, in fact.

It is all politics and you need to understand what those politics are.  Please take the time to read it.

I think we all need to question everything.  My friend, Steven Mendelson, called me on a statement I attributed to Hillary Clinton and he is apparently correct.  I did not hear what she said, only a report of what she said which was that she intended, if elected, to use oil company profits to fund a bureaucracy to develop alternative fuels.  It sounded like her and I believed it.  I am now not sure what she said but I found a web site that quotes her as saying that the oil companies should use their huge profits to fund such an effort.  I seem to have made the mistake of which I accuse others and which I deplore which is to make statements without a sufficient basis for doing so.  I roundly criticize the left for making wild baseless statements and I am happy to have the opportunity to correct the record about what I said.

Let me know what you think after you read the article.  It is very informative.

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Profits

Posted by Buddy on Friday, February 09, 2007 7:41:17 AM
 

This morning I plan to be mercifully short.  Everyone knows my political/economical ideology.  However, everyone should note Hillary Clinton's plan to confiscate oil company profits and create a bureaucracy to study alternative fuels.  What makes an economy hum like a well oiled machine is profits.  When people are not allowed to keep the product of their labor they do not work.  This was the experience that we had in this country in Jamestown and Plymouth.

Ask yourself if you go to work if you did not get paid.  Ask yourself if you would go to work if your paycheck was going to be given to someone else.  Ask yourself if you'd go to work if you were going to get a paycheck whether you worked or not.

Answering these questions honestly demonstrates with a very simple model why communism/socialism/Marxism does not work.  The number of consumers increases and the number of producers decreases.  You do not have to be a rocket scientist or an economist to understand this.  It is not a good idea to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

I could ramble on but I said I wanted to be brief so I will stop.  Have a nice day everybody and may the Lord bless you and keep you.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »