|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Oct 1st, 2003 04:56 PM | ||
| mburbank |
The complete Bushisms at slate.com. http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/ |
|
| Oct 1st, 2003 04:17 PM | ||
| sspadowsky | I must know where you got that quote, Max. El-oh-el. | |
| Oct 1st, 2003 03:54 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Here's what W. has to say about the growing scandal. "Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information—outside the administration." |
|
| Oct 1st, 2003 03:36 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Nice avoidance of my pointing out you totally missed that I answered the question when you said Nice avoidance of the question, Thailor Moon. "avoidance". Christ on a Crutch. You know that's not how you use that word, right? |
|
| Oct 1st, 2003 02:20 PM | ||
| AChimp | Vinth, I see you have no concept of how real spies operate. Stop watching James Bond and read a book like A Man Called Intrepid. | |
| Oct 1st, 2003 12:57 PM | ||
| sspadowsky | Are you really trying to miss the point? You must be making a real effort. | |
| Oct 1st, 2003 12:55 PM | ||
| VinceZeb | She starts training in 85 and she is suddenly and undercover operative? Even you have to admit that is shady at best. | |
| Oct 1st, 2003 12:53 PM | ||
| sspadowsky |
Well, I'd say that half of the 80's, all of the 90's, and all of the current decade constitutes "significant time spent" in each decade. Did you do as poorly in Math as you did in English? |
|
| Oct 1st, 2003 12:52 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Vince. How much clearer could my answer possibly be? Let me cut n paste. "I can't 'admit this is a big inside Washington story that got blown out of proportion' because that' not what I think. " See, you can ONLY admit things you think are true. I think your statement is FALSE. I think it IS a big story. I think it's big nationally. I don't think it's out of proportion at all. See, that's why. If that wasn't the question you meant, than you need to learn how to use modifiers. I'll also bet dolalrs to idiocies that if that wasn't the question you meant, whatever the question was I already answered it, and if you cut n' paste whichever question it was you meant, I'll be happy to cut n' paste where I already answered it. Substandard reading comprehension on your part doe not constitute lack of an answer on my part. It only shows you need remedial English. Sspad, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Apart from that inanity, do you suppose Vinth realizes that the Drudge Report he cut n' pasted supports my contention, not his? Vinth, is that as close to you get as fessing up that Vinth/Boortz was wrong, or did you just not understand what you were posting? To be fair, the agents phrasing was confusing. He should have said "I have learned that I worked with her for three decades". That would have been technicalluy correct. |
|
| Oct 1st, 2003 12:43 PM | ||
| VinceZeb |
I would like to see the records of when she started with the CIA and when this man started with the CIA. Most people don't say 3 decades unless there is a signifigant time spent within the decade. The whole importance on this conversation is lingering on what he meant by 3 decades. |
|
| Oct 1st, 2003 12:35 PM | ||
| sspadowsky |
Quote:
It's good to see that Drudge is continuing to be a journalistic beacon unto others. |
|
| Oct 1st, 2003 11:19 AM | ||
| VinceZeb |
http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUES SEPT 30, 2003 20:52:37 ET XXXXX FORMER CIA OFFICIAL TELLS PBS: OUTED OFFICER 'HAS BEEN UNDER COVER FOR THREE DECADES' A former counter-terrorism official at the CIA and the State Department claimed Tuesday night that outed CIA agent "Valerie Plame" was under cover for three decades and was not a "CIA analyst" as columnist Bob Novak has suggested. Larry Johnson made the charge on PBS's NEWSHOUR. "I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been under cover for three decades." [The WASH POST reported on Wednesday that "Valerie Plame" is 40 years old] MORE Johnson continues: She is not as Bob Novak suggested a "CIA analyst." Given that, i was a CIA analyst for 4 years. I was under cover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the CIA unti I left the Intelligence Agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it. The fact that she was under cover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous. She was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she works with overseas could be compromised... "For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal... and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that, well, this was just an analyst. Fine. Let them go undercover. Let's put them go overseas. Let's out them and see how they like it... "I say this as a registered Republican. I am on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear, of an individual who had no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it because the entire intent was, correctly as Amb. Wilson noted, to intimidate, to suggest taht there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision-making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy, and frankly what was a false policy of suggesting that there was nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend it was something else, to get into this parsing of words. "I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this." [REALAUDIO OF THE INTERVIEW] Developing... |
|
| Oct 1st, 2003 10:48 AM | ||
| VinceZeb | Nice avoidance of the question, Max. | |
| Oct 1st, 2003 10:30 AM | ||
| mburbank |
"Why can't you all just admit this is a big inside Washington story that got blown out of proportion?" Vinth. Talk about insulting intelligence. You know what the word admit means, right? I can't 'admit this is a big inside Washington story that got blown out of proportion' because that' not what I think. I would hve thought that was clear by now. To admit something yhou have to think it's true. You can say "I can't understand why you think this" You can say "Why can't you realize" But the way you use the phrase "Why can't you admit", and you use it a lot is just wrong. I can only assume you don't understand how to use the word. Would I ask "Why can't you just admit you're a moron?"? No. Becuase you don't know you are a moron, you believe you are not a moron, and that's evident. I can say "What keeps you from realizing you are a moron?" That's a legitimate question and real poser to boot. |
|
| Oct 1st, 2003 10:23 AM | ||
| mburbank |
Here's what I missed. Where I said Karl Rove did it. I said it was the sort of thing he's done. I said if he did it he was almost certainly professional enough to cover his tracks. Which is pretty much what Wilson has said. Jeeze Vinth, you/Boortz think that Bush should be allowed his 16 words becuase they're 'technically true'. What did I say that wasn't 'technically true'? And before you recapittulate Boortz's argument today, that no one has said Plame was undercover and she couldn't have been because the CIA would never confirm the employment of an undercover agent, let me say: 1.) CIA agents are as capable of breaking the law as 'administration sources'. Th Boortz argument is totally specious. 2.) Absolutely the ONLY source I have been able to find that comments on the type of agent Plame was is the one that I already posted from The Hill Newspaper. I'll put it up again. "CIA agents work under different sorts of “cover.” There’s “official cover” — like when an agent is assigned to a U.S. embassy under the guise that he or she is a foreign service officer. Then there’s “nonofficial” cover — like when your business cards say you’re a manager at Acme Overseas Energy Corporation, but you really work for the CIA. Plame is in that latter category." Blowing a NOC's cover is federal offense. The CIA as of this morning has not officially commented on the nature of Palme's employment, and they are unlikely to do so unless required to by a federal prosecutor. Why? Because they are not supposed to. There's a reason Boortz doesn't source his material. In this case, I'm fairly sure it's becuase he can't. Do you suppose if it comes out in the wash that Palme was absolutely an undercover agent, Boortz will print a retraction? I myself am not certain if Palme was undercover or routinely employed. But if the latter, I don't think the CIA and the FBI would currently be investigating. That's the way I'm leaning on this one. IF she turns out to be a routine employee who had no cover at all, you can be certain I'll apologize, say this was a mere dirty trick and not a significant crime, and didn't need to be investigated. If she is, what will you do, Vinth? W. himself says he wants to get to the bottom of this and that it's a very serious mtter. Do you disagree? |
|
| Oct 1st, 2003 10:05 AM | ||
| sspadowsky |
OK, so you know that Rove has a history of pulling this sort of stunt, and then you jump our cases for thinking he was behind it. Whose intelligence is being insulted here? EDIT: By the way, that's just ONE story out of a great many. |
|
| Oct 1st, 2003 09:43 AM | ||
| VinceZeb | I know about Rove being fired for supposedly leaking information in 92 or 94. Please don't insult my intelligence. | |
| Oct 1st, 2003 09:15 AM | ||
| sspadowsky | Hey, stupid: I'm willing to bet that you don't know jack shit about Karl Rove, or his past, so why don't you shut the hell up? The reason his name keeps coming up is because he's pulled similar shit all through his career. And if he's made it this far, odds are there's never going to be a way to prove he was behind it. | |
| Oct 1st, 2003 12:01 AM | ||
| VinceZeb |
...But on Monday’s Good Morning America, Wilson had backed away from the very hostile statement which Miklaszewski highlighted, telling Charles Gibson: “In one speech I gave out in Seattle not too long ago I mentioned the name Karl Rove. I think I was probably carried away by the spirit of the moment. I don't have any knowledge that Karl Rove himself was either the leaker or the authorizer of the leak, but I have great confidence that at a minimum he condoned it and certainly did nothing to shut it down.”... http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030930.asp#1 National Review also has a lot of information on this supposed leak. Why can't you all just admit this is a big inside Washington story that got blown out of proportion? |
|
| Sep 30th, 2003 11:57 PM | ||
| VinceZeb |
Karl Rove is behind it all. Wilson never went on Good Morning America and said that he wasn't sure if Rove even had anything to do with it or anything like that.... Dumbasses. |
|
| Sep 30th, 2003 07:41 PM | ||
| AChimp |
Quote:
Vinth, even if you did get a submarine letter, you would have been a sucky captain if you can't understand the simple concept of a chain of command. |
|
| Sep 30th, 2003 05:37 PM | ||
| mburbank |
It is absolutely a Rove-esque dirty trick, and certainly Wilson thinks it's got Roves prints on it. He'd never get caught, though, and while a lot of circumstantial evidence has piled up against Rove for various politically oriented crimes over the years, he's never been caught. He's very slippery. I'm sure if he's the actual mastermind here, he told somebody to tell somebody to tell someboy to do it and then covered all his snail trails. From here on in, like every other good scandal, it's all about the cover-up. That's why the Whitehouse Legal Council has issued a do not destroy order. It's an attempt (and a wise one) to limmit damage. If this IS Roves work, anything that needed to be destroyed was destroyed back in July. |
|
| Sep 30th, 2003 05:28 PM | ||
| sspadowsky | Max, what do you think about the Rove angle? Do you tend to think he was behind it? As I said, from what I've read about the man so far, this seems like something he or one of his minions would do. | |
| Sep 30th, 2003 05:24 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Here's a tid bit from The Hill, a newspaper written for an widely read by congress. "CIA agents work under different sorts of “cover.” There’s “official cover” — like when an agent is assigned to a U.S. embassy under the guise that he or she is a foreign service officer. Then there’s “nonofficial” cover — like when your business cards say you’re a manager at Acme Overseas Energy Corporation, but you really work for the CIA. Plame is in that latter category." |
|
| Sep 30th, 2003 12:39 PM | ||
| sspadowsky | Oh, by the way, from what I have read and heard about Karl Rove, I daresay this has his fingerprints all over it. | |
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
