Nonsense. That is not a fair extrapolation at all.
Saying “Eyewitness testimony is not necessarily conclusive” is a far cry from saying “Any legal convictions that were based on eyewitness testimony — whether completely or in part – are automatically unreliable.” Eyewitness testimony comes with differing degrees of reliability, and it is often linked to other evidence in a case.
Clearly that does not follow, logically, from the original statement. I guess you lied…
This is not responsive to the question.
Sometimes people are convicted by eyewitness testimony, yes. Other times, people are acquitted even though eyewitness testimony inculpated them.
You are, in fact, taking the equally absurd opposite position from your quote: clearly, you’re saying, anyone accused by eyewitness testimony must be instantly imprisoned. Neither alternative is correct.
Clearly, you find it easier to argue against things I have not said.
Fer cryin’ out loud, people. What you are reading is an advertisement. Can we put on the hats we wear when evaluating a salesman’s comments for just a frickin’ moment?
The President was “involved” in McClellan passing on false information. “Involved”. Can you evaluate the usage of that word for just a moment before running off at the mouth about any-fuckin’-thing being “proved”. Why do you think that word is used? Why is something more direct not said? Do you believe for one Og-damned moment that the word wasn’t chosen carefully by lawyers and marketers to sound like everything and mean nothing that can be pinned down?
“Involved” is off the same shelf of journalistic weasel words as “linked to” and “associated with”. It could mean anything from “the Prez made up the lies personally, acknowledged to me that he was doing so, and ordered me to repeat them publically” through to “the Prez was, unbeknownst to him, fed lies that he innocently repeated to me”.
Winch your bloody knees down away from your chins and stop ripping your own credibility to shreds by shrill repetition of whatever marketing bullshit suits your prejudices.
Fuck. I’ve agreed with Bricker twice in a week. I need a holiday.
I don’t buy it. As far as I know, NO president has ever willingly exposed a covert government agent. What he did was undermine the national security and put lives of covert agents in danger as a petty bit of political retribution against the husband of someone that dared to tell the truth about the administration’s deceit about the alleged Niger-Iraq nuclear connection. Cheney and Bush are like mobsters, cross them and they go after your family.
Someone cherry-picked a quote from this book to hype sales. Let’s see it in context and see if it warrants a new special prosecutor. There may be enough to imprison Bush and Cheney, there may not be. There may or may not be fire, but there is enough smoke to look for it.
Very well. Let’s return to what you have said:
What is the proof? How does one person accusing another of lying constitute proof?
Particularly when that person hasn’t accused the other of lying.
Exactly. And we don’t know that Bush did that, either. There’s a reasonable (though far from airtight) case to be made against Cheney, but no evidence that I’m aware of that Bush was involved in outing Plame. Even this story is about the cover-up after the outing, not the outing itself.
Keep that in mind for '09, shitbird.
-Joe
No, he was not a jelly doughnut.
Well, and what he told us humble Americans about his position on any ‘cover-up’ too:
He said the person would be “taken care of”, which is what he did-- take care of Libby with the commutation of his sentence. No lie there! 
Treason charges will never happen.
Mainly because outing a CIA agent to the press isn’t treason. Secretly handing a list of CIA agents over to ObL would be treason. Big difference.
Bush has been imprisoned?! :eek:
Was convicted on eye witness testimony?!? :eek: :eek:
When the fuck did that happen?
For, surely, a press release for a tell-all book is exactly the same thing as being convicted in a court of law as far as standards of proof goes.
My first thought in reading your post was how they didn’t get Nixon for the “third-rate burglary.” They got him for the cover-up afterwards.
I agree there is not proof yet and that it is an allegation. But suppose that McCellan is able to provide convincing evidence. That would be the perfect set up. His aide (or higher up) outs Plame as an act of revenge for her husband’s revealing the President’s lie. Bush is part of the cover-up. He doesn’t have to testify. He sees to it that Libby doesn’t go to prison.
Martin, I don’t blame you for thinking the SS is going to grab people for typing words on a message board, but I think you are safe for now. And I don’t blame you for claiming that you don’t give a shit. Even those of us who didn’t vote for him and defend him all these years are humiliated by his audacity.
But you are wrong to try to excuse him by saying that they are all like this. No, some of them know how to put two sentences together. Some of them know how to win wars. Some of them know how to negotiate. Some of them surround themselves with brilliant women and men. Some of them admit to mistakes and learn from them. Some of them study war strategy.
Bush is absolutely the worst.
Jesus Martin, please tell me you wrote that while flying a 747 over my head.
I don’t really have a bun in this oven, but didn’t someone named Armitage admit to Investigator Fitzgerald, a few days into his investigation that he was the one who had inadvertantly “outed” Valerie Plame.
Subsequent to this finding didn’t Fitzgerald swear both him and his boss, Secretary of State Colin Powell, to secrecy so that he could continue his investigation into the background of the outing.
For understandable reasons. Fitzgerald would have looked pretty silly winding up his investigation a few days after it started.