Features

mburbank · #26

"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.

VinceZeb · #27

Nice avoidance of the question, Max.

VinceZeb · #28

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...

sspadowsky · #29

Quote:

"I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been under cover for three decades."

He left the agency in 1989, which means he started there in 1985. If he started training with Valerie Plame in 1985, that means Valerie Plame also started in 1985 (at which time she would have been about 22 or 23). If Valerie Plame has worked for the CIA during the 80's, 90's and 00's, then the "three decades" comment makes perfect sense. He didn't say "thirty years."

It's good to see that Drudge is continuing to be a journalistic beacon unto others.

VinceZeb · #30

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.

mburbank · #31

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.

sspadowsky · #32

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?

VinceZeb · #33

She starts training in 85 and she is suddenly and undercover operative? Even you have to admit that is shady at best.

sspadowsky · #34

Are you really trying to miss the point? You must be making a real effort.

AChimp · #35

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.

mburbank · #36

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?

mburbank · #37

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."