It was someone else's idea to suggest her husband be sent to africa. She said that someone walking by the office overheard the situation, and suggested her husband.
She then suggested that she was told to send an email (which she didn't mention in the email it was on behalf of someone else)
This is her direct testimony, do liberals really believe it, or do they just pretend to believe her because they want the republicans to be "in the wrong"
2007-03-16 06:14:12 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
---
what difference does it make if she lied? Wouldn't that destroy her entire testimony?
What difference does it make why the U.S. Attorneys were fired? Or does that make you look like a hypocrite?
2007-03-16 06:22:30 · update #1
---
NOWHERE HERE HAVE I DEFENDED ANYONE.
MY QUESTION IS SIMPLE! YET SEEMS TO BE AVOIDED BY SOME CHANGING THE SUBJECT
2007-03-16 06:23:52 · update #2
Surely you do not think these left wing nut jobs could possibly have a concept of reasoning. What you are saying here is not possible for them to decipher. They just WANT to believe her because it fits in with their concept of the way things are.
2007-03-16 06:22:03 · answer #1 · answered by just the facts 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why do you think all liberals are of the same mind about this?
Isn't is possible that some people believe her and some don't, despite having similar overall political preferences?
Besides -- the issue that most people are debating has nothing to do with whether she sent her husband to Africa or not.
The only issue is whether government officials violated federal law by revealing her identity, which was classified information.
How does it possibly matter whether she came up with the idea for her husband to go to Africa or not?
2007-03-16 13:21:16 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
She went under oath, and gave that testimony. If you can show where any of it is anything other than 100% truth, then have at it.
Otherwise, shut the f**k up.
Scooter was only the first to be called to testify and end up perjuring himself.
I wonder who the next administration official to get it square in the nuts will be??? Could it be Karl?? Or maybe even Dick!!
Watch the video below to see the portion where she verifies her covert status, while under oath.
It's driving neo-con idiots mad!! They don't have their do-nothing rubberstamp congress anymore!!!
2007-03-16 13:23:25 · answer #3 · answered by joemammysbigguns 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do you believe Karl Rove failed to fill out a notification of a security violation, either before OR after she was outed publicly
- even though he was REQUIRED to so an investigation could establish the extent of damage done?
C'mon, quit defending the rats by attacking Plame. Cheney has already gone down that road, pal.
2007-03-16 13:22:17 · answer #4 · answered by Truth 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You got it....if it can be fabricated, dreamed up, twisted or conjured to cast a shadow on the Republicans, the Libs will grab it and run!
2007-03-16 13:18:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If it's anti-Bush they will belive ANYONE and I mean no facts no thruth. Anything is good enough to satifiy their bloodlust
2007-03-16 13:21:07 · answer #6 · answered by John A 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Traitors outed her. Traitors support her outers.
2007-03-16 13:24:34 · answer #7 · answered by Beau D. Satva 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What difference does it make who sent him?
2007-03-16 13:20:42 · answer #8 · answered by Studbolt Slickrock Deux 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'll whatever she says over any Republican any day!
2007-03-16 13:17:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋