"Re: "Better than Mugabe"

"Apparently the satire is lost upon the peanut gallery here."

You know zilch about "satire". And attempting to palm of your hate-speech as "satire" is a transparent lie.

"The point is of course that for most here, no matter how bad any other leader might be, Bush is worse."

It is you who made the comparison, and no one else -- unless you got it from another of your heroic America-Haters.

Does what Mugabe does oimpact US citizens?

No, it doesn't.

Is Mugabe president of the US?

No, he is not.

There is wisdom in this precept: Worry first about the terrorist who are closest to oneself. Mugabe is in Africa; Bushit is within the US.

"Even if that leader hacks up opponents family members or supports such leaders in the UN. Tsk. Tsk."

Is that anything like putting firecrackers in frogs' mouths and blowing them up?

Is that anything like committing the war crime of torture as state policy?

"I also notice no one had a response to my question about the actual leakers, Armitage and Novak. No surprise there.

"-- shooter242 Friday, July 18, 2008 11:42 AM"

No one respondes to your right-wing "talking points" because they are fabrications. Fitzerald followed the evidence where it led, and prosecuted the anti-American who lied through his teeth in order to obstruct/block the investigation.

But let's get to the basics:

You and your fellow shitheads love to lie that Plame wasn't covert. These are the contrary facts:

1. The CIA referred the outing of Plame for investigation in the belief that it had violated a law which applies ONLY to covert agents.

2. The first determination Fitzgerald had to make was two-fold:

A. Was Plame covert? and,

B. Does the law said to be violated apply to Plame?

3. The answers being "yes" in both instances, there wee sufficient grounds for investigation.

To make it real short and sweet, shithead:

If Plame were not covert, there would not have been an investigation.

There was an investigation because Plame was covert.

Fitzgerald not only knew/knows facts and evidence you do not, but also his history is that of a superior prosecutor. All you are, by comparison, is an America-Hating loud-mouthed liar and bigot.

And note the Fitzgerald has not closed the office opened specifically for the Plame investigation. Why do you think that might be, punk?

And note that when Fitzgerald testified to Congress, and was asked specifically about whether he'd heard talk of his being removede from the PLAME investigation, he said he couldn't answer that question because of an ongoing trial.

That ongoing trial was in CHICAGO.

Several witnesses in that trial testified, under oath, that the person on trial -- and since convicted -- flew to DC, and the White House, to talk with Rove/his people about the Fitzerald investigation in CHICAGO.

Your only "claim" against the Plame investigation is a pretense to competence by repeating "facts" got from non-lawyer talking heads/entertainers who support the Bushit criminal enterprise.

Bottom line, shithead: the CIA's information about Plame's status -- and thus Fitzgerald's -- is 'way superior to yours, and to that of all the Bushit ass-kissers who hate the rule of law, and thus hate the US itself. And Fitzegerald's history and experience and expertise in HOW to pursue criminal corruption isn't up to pea-brained members of the peanut gallery such as you. You have nothing truthful or credible to contribute to anything, so STFU.

"Obviously we can't Impeach his ass, . . . ."

READ THE CONSTITUTION.

His ass CAN be impeached.

"-- ohmercy Friday, July 18, 2008 11:34 AM"

"Sir Blakeman?

A third rate fact checker would know that first off, I am no longer the President of Freedom's Watch having left that position over 4 months ago.

-- BBlakeman

"So this means that we should all take back everything we said about you? Because we weren't following your career on a daily basis, and so happened to miss this "third rate fact"?"

"-- Kitt Friday, July 18, 2008 11:24 AM"

It's a third-rate fact because about a third-rate America-Hating hack.

"Get your facts straight! Blakeman was right!"

Blakeman was right-WING.

"Glenn, you are either, or a combination of or all three, or all three itself: Incompetent, ignorant or a liar."

You'll be substantiating any one of those slurs?

"A third rate fact checker would know that first off, I am no longer the President of Freedom's Watch having left that position over 4 months ago."

Who gives a shit either way, Fifth Columnist.

"Second, even a high schooler knows that the Judiciary Act of 1789 created the office of Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and Chief Law Enforcement Official of the Federal Government."

Chief Law Enforcement officer who took an oath the protect and defend the CONSTITUTION and laws of the US, and who is to enforce the laws impartially, without fear or favor.

"The Department is part of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH."

You almost rise to the wisdom of comic book hero Dick Tracy.

"Although the Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters, the Attorney General GIVES ADVICE AND OPINIONS TO THE PRESIDENT AS WELL AS THE HEADS OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS."

Also in "legal matters".

"In that capacity it can be said that in those circumstances that the "client is The President"."

Only by lying. The AG's opinions are not advice to the president as a person; they are to the GOV'T. Nor are they specific to his efforts to, for example, defend himself against having authorized the commission of the war crime of torture. Those statutes are to be enforced by the AG, regardless who the war criminal.

"When the Attorney General advices the President in matters of Executive Privilege the Attorney General does so as a member of the Executive Branch."

The AG is not in the business of "advising the president in matters of Executive Privilege," because under particular circumstances it is the AG who is to prosecute in spite of such claims. Congress has the Constitutional authority to subpoena Executive officials, and to have those subpoenas obeyed. If they are not obeyed, the AG is to enforce them -- not, instead, take the side of the target of the subpoena against his oath, and his duty to serve not Karl Rove, not Bushit, but the People of the United States.

The advice as to "Executive Privilege," which is in essence a defense against the right of We the people to know, comes from the president's PERSONAL lawyer.

In NO instance is the president a "client" of the US AG. In NO instance.

But if you want to insist upon that distortion of Constitution and law, then we'll hang Yoo's criminal subversions around Bushit own neck.

Deal?

"You need to get your facts and history correct."

You need to cease substituting your America-Hating political agenda/subversion of the US system of laws for the Constitution and laws.

"My suggestion would be to enroll asap in a local high school American History Class."

You are lecturing a lawyer, child. An education in law provides a great deal more than high school civics -- which latter you obviously flunked. Let me guess: in order to be allowed to be a Republican't, one must achieve a particular level of arrogance, based upon total and active contempt for Constitution and rule of law, and that based upon a total rejection of truth as the enemy of unbridled "free market" -- lawless -- ambition.

"-- BBlakeman Friday, July 18, 2008 11:05 AM"

Tell us, Blakeman: how is your lying -- in this instance against Constitution and rule of law -- the equivalent of morality, let alone morally superior to those who operate according to law and truth?