Aids HIV FAQ

OT – Hastert, the "buck stops here" will fire his staffers

Question:

Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." How come Hastert has to wait for an investigation?  Why can’t he just pull the staffers in his office & ask them? And wait a minute – I thought the buck stopped with him?  If his staffers covered this up, then he’s responsible – right?  Or maybe the buck doesn’t really stop with him? Mr Soul http://www.MusicIsLove.com

Response:

> Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there > was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation > process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." > How come Hastert has to wait for an investigation?  Why can’t he just > pull the staffers in his office & ask them? > And wait a minute – I thought the buck stopped with him?  If his > staffers covered this up, then he’s responsible – right?  Or maybe the > buck doesn’t really stop with him? > Mr Soul > http://www.MusicIsLove.com

  It all depends on one’s personal ethics.  There are still some rare individuals (even if they did not know what had happened), who’d look at the situation and say "these are my people, whom I have personally trained and molded into doing business *my* way…..and, since I’m ultimately responsible, I’ll step down….as I have failed to properly lead them." And then, there are others who (knew everything)would say "I just might be able to skate out of this one, with no one being able to *prove* that I personally knew anything….it’s all my staff’s fault!" If Hastert takes that option, he won’t look so good. Especially since a good number of republicans don’t want to be tarnished by this one.  He’ll have the dems attacking him, and not too many repugs willing to get involved to stop them. In times like this, I would have a lot more respect for the man if he chose the first option above (assuming he really didn’t know anything!). I’m sure a lot will come out about this one…especially since the repugs (as a whole) aren’t trying to block a real investigation (or, so it would appear). Mike

Response:

courageously avow: >Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there >was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation >process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." >How come Hastert has to wait for an investigation?  Why can’t he just >pull the staffers in his office & ask them? >And wait a minute – I thought the buck stopped with him?  If his >staffers covered this up, then he’s responsible – right?  Or maybe the >buck doesn’t really stop with him?

I guess a buck just isn’t what it used to be. — Ken Wilson

Response:

I knew Hastert wasn’t going to resign because it’s too close to the election.   They’re hoping that they’ll maintain control over the House and that everything will blow over after the election.  But if Hastert resigned then they would more likely loose control. Indeed, it will be an interesting election. Mr Soul

Response:

> Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there > was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation > process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." > How come Hastert has to wait for an investigation?  Why can’t he just > pull the staffers in his office & ask them?

People like you would never believe anything that he did, or said about it.

Response:

did courageously avow: >Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there >was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation >process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." >That has about as much cred as Bush saying he would fire all whitehouse >leakers.

That could explain why they suddenly had all the urinals in the White House, because no one was using them anymore for fear of being caught. — Ken Wilson

Response:

>Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there >was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation >process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." > That has about as much cred as Bush saying he would fire all whitehouse > leakers.

Do you read the news? 1) Go back and find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that broke the law. 2) The leak was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s number 2 at the State Dept, NOT the White House.

Response:

> People like you would never believe anything that he did, or said about it.

People like you would never believe anything a Liberal or Democrat did either. I believe that he said the buck stops with him but now he’s saying the buck stops with his aids.  That’s unacceptable to me & should be unacceptable to you.  If a Democrat had made those remarks, you’d be all over him. Mr Soul

Response:

> 1) Go back and find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that > broke the law.

Not exactly.  This is what the Bush admin said first: McClellan – September 29, 2003: "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." Then on September 30, 2003, it became a violation of law not just high standards. Nice try John but if a Democrat had done this you’d be calling foul. Bush might have to fire himself – http://nysun.com/timesleak.php. "Bush Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury" > 2) The leak was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s number 2 at the State Dept, > NOT the White House.

Armitage was not the only leaker.  Rove leaked Plame to the Newsweek reporter independently of Armitage/Novak. Mr Soul

Response:

> > People like you would never believe anything that he did, or said about it. > People like you would never believe anything a Liberal or Democrat did > either. > I believe that he said the buck stops with him but now he’s saying the > buck stops with his aids.  That’s unacceptable to me & should be > unacceptable to you.  If a Democrat had made those remarks, you’d be > all over him. > Mr Soul

You misuderstood the context. He meant that when the money comes in, the buck stops with him.

Response:

> find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that > broke the law.

What a convenient way for him to weasel out of taking action against his buddies and let the stench of dishonor continue to waft through the West WIng.

Response:

> People like you would never believe anything that he did, or said about > it. > People like you would never believe anything a Liberal or Democrat did > either.

How do you find it so easy to lie? I have NEVER said any such thing, and I have in FACT spoken well of some Dems, and voted that way before as well! Oops! More of those fact thingies that you refuse to let influence your views, beliefs, or posts.

Response:

> 1) Go back and find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that > broke the law. > Not exactly.  This is what the Bush admin said first:

Do consider READING WHAT I WROTE before you address what I wrote. Bush DID say if someone broke the law. > McClellan – September 29, 2003: "The President has set high standards, > the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it > very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to > adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this > administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this > administration." > Then on September 30, 2003, it became a violation of law not just high > standards. > Nice try John but if a Democrat had done this you’d be calling foul.

No I would NOT. Richard Armitage is the confessed leaker. > Bush might have to fire himself – http://nysun.com/timesleak.php. "Bush > Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury"

That was NOT about Plame or her name as YOU know, so why the continued dishonesty? From YOUR story; "The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule." > 2) The leak was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s number 2 at the State > Dept, > NOT the White House. > Armitage was not the only leaker.  Rove leaked Plame to the Newsweek > reporter independently of Armitage/Novak.

Go back and read what was said. Rove did NOT leak Plame’s name.

Response:

You really didn’t follow this that well did you. > Go back and read what was said. Rove did NOT leak Plame’s name.

Armitage leaked to Novak. Rove may have leaked to Newsweek’s Cooper. He talked to Cooper before the leak came out. "Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame’s name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak’s column appeared; in other words, before Plame’s identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Rove carefully chooose his words when testifying: "I didn’t know her name. I didn’t leak her name," But he knew who Wilson’s wife was & he knew that she was a undercover CIA agent.  At the time, Rove handed out this information, he was leaking it. Mr Soul

Response:

>>> 1) Go back and find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that >> broke the law. > Not exactly.  This is what the Bush admin said first: >Do consider READING WHAT I WROTE before you address what I wrote. >Bush DID say if someone broke the law.

Eventually.  He kept moving the bar, same as has since first going into Iraq. — Ken Wilson

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> 1) Go back and find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that >> broke the law. > Not exactly.  This is what the Bush admin said first: > Do consider READING WHAT I WROTE before you address what I wrote. > Bush DID say if someone broke the law. > McClellan – September 29, 2003: "The President has set high standards, > the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it > very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to > adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this > administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this > administration." > Then on September 30, 2003, it became a violation of law not just high > standards. > Nice try John but if a Democrat had done this you’d be calling foul. > No I would NOT. Richard Armitage is the confessed leaker. > Bush might have to fire himself – http://nysun.com/timesleak.php. "Bush > Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury" > That was NOT about Plame or her name as YOU know, so why the continued > dishonesty? From YOUR story; "The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick > Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule." >> 2) The leak was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s number 2 at the State >> Dept, >> NOT the White House. > Armitage was not the only leaker.  Rove leaked Plame to the Newsweek > reporter independently of Armitage/Novak. > Go back and read what was said. Rove did NOT leak Plame’s name.

oh yeah, just like Clinton did not have sex with that women. He just leaked Wilson’s wife but not her name, very cute.

Response:

> Eventually.  He kept moving the bar, same as has since first going > into Iraq.

That’s correct.  And have you noticed as recent as yesterday, Bush isn’t even talking about a democracy in Iraq.  I listened to 2 analysts last night on PBS and they painted a bleak picture.  Basically, they were discussing ways we could get out without it looking like a complete failure. Mr Soul

Response:

> You really didn’t follow this that well did you.

We will see… > But he knew who Wilson’s wife was & he knew that she was a undercover > CIA agent.

Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.

Response:

> > You really didn’t follow this that well did you. > We will see… > But he knew who Wilson’s wife was & he knew that she was a undercover > CIA agent. > Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.

How about if we just prove he’s gay?

Response:

> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.

I can’t prove that.  All I can prove is that Rove knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA & that he told Matt Cooper about it before the Novak article ran.  I can also tell you that Rove indicated that he had heard about Wilson’s wife when Novak talked to him.  How was that now? Mr Soul

Response:

> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. > I can’t prove that.

I knew that was just more bullshit that you made up! Your usual.

Response:

> >> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. > I can’t prove that.I knew that was just more bullshit that you made up! > Your usual.

Fuck you!  Rove outed Plame to Matt Cooper.  That’s what the fact are. He outed her in the same way that Armitage did to Novak.  Exactly the same way.  Rove also lied by saying that he hadn’t heard about Plame before Novak, when in fact, he told Novak that he had heard about Plame. Mr Soul

Response:

> >> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. > > I can’t prove that.I knew that was just more bullshit that you made up! > Your usual. > Fuck you!

Jeez you usually don’t get cranky when you get caught lying! Let see how this happened…

> But he knew who Wilson’s wife was & he knew that she was a undercover > CIA agent.

> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.

> I can’t prove that.

>> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. > I can’t prove that. > I knew that was just more bullshit that you made up! > Your usual.

Your parents must be so proud of you!

Response:

> Jeez you usually don’t get cranky when you get caught lying! Let see how > this happened…

And so don’t you.  We catch you lying here all the time.  We caught you with your stupid Monica is 19 claim just this week.  When are you going to show us those blogs & references to the urban legends? On the other hand, I’ve never intentionally lied. Rove outed Valerie Plame to Matt Cooper & then he lied about it later, saying he’d heard of it from Novak.  That of course contradicts statements he had previously made. > Your parents must be so proud of you!

Actually they are quite proud of me – thanks! Mr Soul

Response:

> Jeez you usually don’t get cranky when you get caught lying! Let see how > this happened… > And so don’t you.  We catch you lying here all the time.

Not once, not ever, but nice try! We caught you > with your stupid Monica is 19 claim just this week.

You are the one that accuses others of lying anytime they make an error. As you know, a lie requires that one knows what they are posting is not true, much like you do all of the time! Infact I have saved and reposted a number of examples of your lies! When are you going > to show us those blogs & references to the urban legends?

I will answer to Howards request as soon as he answers to my previous request. > On the other hand, I’ve never intentionally lied.

Here’s a Mr Soul lie!

> Thank you for finally admitting that he is UNETHICAL after breaking Ethics > Rules!

admitted that. >>  Other than the broken ethics rule,

Here is another example of Mr Soul lying! You might have been Ok if you would learn to use the words, "I believe", but Nooooo, you state things as fact when you know the is ZERO verification because it isn’t true!

> But he knew who Wilson’s wife was & he knew that she was a undercover > CIA agent.

> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I can’t prove that.

Response:

Filed under: Aids