Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Their Plame talking points

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
dooner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 09:01 PM
Original message
Their Plame talking points
After flipping through some of the talk shows this morning, I heard some of the neocon talking points we'll be hearing much more of in the coming week (see below). What other talking points do you expect to hear?


#1) Wilson lied in his editorial about Niger uranium. The editorial he wrote did not match the actual report of his findings. Therefore, BushCo had an obligation to discredit Wilson because he was lying.

---Anybody know what the heck that is about?


#2) Most democrats who are now anti-war, supported the war earlier.
Everyone thought Saddam had WMD's. Therefore, the democrats are hypocrites.

--- Of course we know now that the intelligence presented to our senators was "cooked" according to the information we have learned from the Downing Street Memos, etc. etc. etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Per number two
Democrats in 2003 believed the president of the United States would tell them the truth; or to put it another way that POTUS would not lie to them.

Per number one: Republicans think that people who lie should be discredited? Damn, be careful what you ask for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. heh heh nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlavesandBulldozers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. i thought Fieldmarshall Dumbfuk
"knows where they are"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. It would not matter if Wilson said he found pink tutus in the editorial
He wasn't under oath when he wrote it, there is no requirement to be accurate in newprint--ask Judy Miller.

Typical GOP spin--move those goalposts, focus on minutia, lie like a rug!

What do you wanna bet Mr. Fitzgerald is taking a page from the monkey, and NOT CARING WHAT THEY THINK....

You can only say BOO for so long before people no longer jump.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. 1. Bring charges against him. 2. Idiot Boy lied.
NEXT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindrifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. A couple of things
about the editorial--I would like to see it next to the report he filed. Otherwise, I have no idea what they define as a "lie." Even without the two pieces of writing, I would remind these numbskulls that an editorial is not a factual piece of reporting. It is an opinion. A person's opinion may be fact-based but the reason it is called an opinion piece is to make it clear to readers that it is not to be regarded the same as a reporting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dooner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I thought the report wilson filed was verbal, not written
I'm pretty sure I remember Wilson saying that he didn't file a written report, he gave a verbal report to someone.

(I believe this charge of Wilson lying came from someone with the National Review this morning.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindrifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Thanks--that's a pretty interesting
way to put the liar spin on the "report."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dooner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
9. Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges (NY Times)

Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and DAVID JOHNSTON, October 24, 2005

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 - With a decision expected this week on possible indictments in the C.I.A. leak case, allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor.

<snip>

On Sunday, Republicans appeared to be preparing to blunt the impact of any charges. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, speaking on the NBC news program "Meet the Press," compared the leak investigation with the case of Martha Stewart and her stock sale, "where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime."

<snip>

But allies of the White House have quietly been circulating talking points in recent days among Republicans sympathetic to the administration, seeking to help them make the case that bringing charges like perjury mean the prosecutor does not have a strong case, one Republican with close ties to the White House said Sunday. Other people sympathetic to Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said that indicting them would amount to criminalizing politics and that Mr. Fitzgerald did not understand how Washington works.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/politics/24leak.html?ei=5088&en=6cb9607ccd79f4fd&ex=1287806400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC