Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Bush's Brain does it again
addi Posted: Mon Jul 11 21:12:10 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  We now know that e-mails recently turned over by Time Magazine between writer Matthew Cooper and Time editors reveal that one of Mr. Cooper’s sources in the Plame CIA matter was Mr. Rove. This has been confirmed by Newsweek and two lawyers representing witnesses involved in the investigation. Mr. Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, also has confirmed that Mr. Rove was interviewed by Mr. Cooper in connection with a possible article about Ms. Plame three or four days before Robert Novak wrote a column outing Ms. Plame as a CIA operative.

Mr. Rove had told Chris Matthews that Ambassador Wilson’s wife and her undercover status were “fair game.” Hmmm...

Outing any CIA agent is a treasonous act here, for obvious reasons.

This all started when Ambassador Wilson (Plame's Husband) was sent by the Bush administration to Niger, Africa to check out intelligence that claimed Saddam was trying to get yellowcake uranium. There was no evidence and he reported that when he returned. Apparantly you don't do things like that when the administration is trying to build a case to invade Iraq. So someone from this administration decides in retribution that Wilson's wife's undercover status would be leaked to the press, thus ruining her career, putting her in danger, and showing Wilson what happens to subordinates that publically question the "facts".

Here's the kicker folks...and why I'm so jaded about politics lately: It's been out for a while now. Is there public outrage? Is it saturating the news waves and headlines here like the M. Jackson trial? Are Americans screaming for the truth about Rove's involvement in this federal offense?

Nope. It's a minor blip on the radar screen.

I'm so disgusted with politics right now I'm getting sick just typing this out.




 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jul 11 21:40:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Nowhere does it say that Rove named names.
If it were a slam dunk as you say it is, the New York Times would be running it front page every day, as would the LA times.
Surely Dan Rather would be first in line to have Mr. Rove shot at dawn.
I'm not saying Rove is completely innocent, but as of now there is not enough evidence that he is guilty as charged.


 
addi Posted: Mon Jul 11 22:13:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  the spin continues...

Karl Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's wife worked at the CIA, Rove responded through his lawyer that he did not give Cooper the name Valerie Plame, but merely referred to "Wilson's wife."

So Rove's lawyer NOW says that Rove informed the reporter that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, but that because he didn't literally say Valerie Wilson it's okay.

Do a google seach on "Joseph Wilson's wife" and count the seconds it takes to discover her name. Info on her was available online even before any of this surfaced. The reporter was already told that she worked with the CIA. Hell, a Fox reporter would be smart enough to put 2+2 together on this one.

Last year Rove soundly denied talking to any reporter about this.
Now his own lawyer says he did.
Today we learn that because he didn't literally use her name that he shouldn't be blamed.

Hell, I'm not naive. I know this stuff goes on in politics. It's the double standard hypocrisy that bugs the hell out of me.
Can you imagine if Clinton's chief of staff had had this much evidence that he/she helped to out a CIA agent? The conservatives would have screamed "Treason!".
Rove gets away with murder and the media and American people let him.

I need Bryer's Ice cream...sigh




 
DanSRose Posted: Mon Jul 11 22:50:05 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Has the president commented on any of this? That his #2 man may have committed treason (ID'ing a CIA agent even indirectly is treason- it looks like he did not disclose her name, but did say she was Ambassador Wilson's wife and was directing intelligence in the region)? Just curious.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 06:57:11 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  From the AP:

New York Times reporter Judith Miller is in jail for refusing to reveal who in the administration talked to her about Plame.

Cooper had also planned to go to jail rather than talk, but at the last minute he agreed to cooperate with investigators when a source, Rove, gave him permission to do so. Cooper's employer, Time Inc., also turned over Cooper's e-mail and notes.

One of the e-mails was a note from Cooper to his boss in which he said he had spoken to Rove, who described the wife of former U.S. Ambassador and Bush administration critic Joe Wilson as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, Newsweek magazine reported.

It said "Wilson's wife" — not CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney — authorized a trip by Wilson to Africa. The purpose was to check out reports that Iraq had tried to obtain yellowcake uranium for use in nuclear weapons.

Rove's conversation with Cooper took place five days after Plame's husband suggested in a New York Times op-ed piece that the Bush administration had manipulated intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq. Wilson's trip to Africa provided the basis for his criticism.

Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, said his client did not disclose Plame's name. Luskin declined to say how Rove found out that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and refused to say how Rove came across the information that it was Wilson's wife who authorized his trip to Africa.

"In the conversation, Karl is warning Cooper not to get too far out in front of the story," Luskin said. "There were false allegations out there that Vice President Cheney sent Wilson to Niger and that Wilson had reported back to Cheney about his trip to Niger. Neither was true."

Luskin added, "A fair-minded reading of Cooper's e-mail is that Rove was trying to discourage Time magazine from circulating false allegations about Cheney, not trying to encourage them by saying anything about Wilson or his wife."



 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 12 07:15:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Today's Headlines...They don't want to talk about it


"McClellan (Bush spokesman) repeatedly said he couldn't comment because the matter is under investigation. When it was pointed out he had commented previously even though the investigation was ongoing, he responded: "I've really said all I'm going to say on it." "

"One of the e-mails was a note from Cooper to his boss in which he said he had spoken to Rove, who described the wife of former U.S. Ambassador and Bush administration critic Joe Wilson as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, Newsweek magazine reported."

This leads me to the question...How did Rove get this info? The Chief of Staff doesn't have access to any list of current CIA operatives. He obviously knew her status, so some ranking official with that kind of high security clearance must have passed it on to him.

and BTW when this story first came to light Bush promised to fire the source of the leak from the White House.

We shall see. I'm not holding my breath



*sorry to you non-politicos out there. I know this bores you to tears. skip this thread and go back to the post about Libra sleeping naked...you'll feel better.



 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 12 07:17:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  We used the same source, Hif.

scarey!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 08:31:46 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The difference being that I haven't jumped to the conclusion of guilt or innocence yet.


 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 12 08:38:55 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>The difference being that I haven't jumped to the conclusion of guilt or innocence yet.

Gotcha. Cuz it's not a liberal democrat being accused...it's one of your guys.

And the distance of any "jump" needing to be made is getting smaller and smaller with each new revelation.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 09:03:52 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>filthy mcnasty said:
>>The difference being that I haven't jumped to the conclusion of guilt or innocence yet.
>
>Gotcha. Cuz it's not a liberal democrat being accused...it's one of your guys.
>
>And the distance of any "jump" needing to be made is getting smaller and smaller with each new revelation.
>
No, you don't "got me", it doesn't matter what his affiliation.
The same logic says you WANT him to be guilty.
He's guilty until proven innocent is he not ? You do subcribe to this premise don't you ?
What "new revelations" do you speak of ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 09:14:27 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  One thing about this does not make sense.
Cooper was willing to go to jail rather than reveal his source and Rove gave him permission to speak.
Why do you suppose he did that ?


 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 12 09:49:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:

>No, you don't "got me", it doesn't matter what his affiliation.

Sorry...I forgot you would never think of pointing fingers at democrats unless they're proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law.
With the due respect I give to a friend like you, please spare me your self-righteous indignation.


>He's guilty until proven innocent is he not ? You do subcribe to this premise don't you ?

Hmm..you mean innocent until proven guilty?


>What "new revelations" do you speak of ?

I've already pointed them out clearly in previous posts. An adament denial from the White House that Rove ever spoke with any reporter. Then we hear he DID speak with a reporter. Then we hear he didn't give her name, just the fact that it was Wilson's wife, and she worked for the CIA.

In fact the slime trail Rove has left behind himself over the years of his political work is long and well documented. The end has always justified the means to him, even if it is dirty, untrue, and unethical.
It's like coming to the defense of a sex offender on his 4th charge...
"Yeah, he was guilty of the first three charges, but that doesn't mean there's any connection to this fourth charge against him."

Rove hasn't given us one good reason to presume his innocence, based on his past record, but he's given us plenty of reasons to suspect his guilt.


 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 12 09:52:18 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:

>Cooper was willing to go to jail rather than reveal his source and Rove gave him permission to speak.
>Why do you suppose he did that ?

Because any sane reporter with half a wit realizes how important it is to the future of the integrity of journalism to be able to tell a reliable news source that they will be protected.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 10:03:11 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>filthy mcnasty said:
>
>>No, you don't "got me", it doesn't matter what his affiliation.
>
>Sorry...I forgot you would never think of pointing fingers at democrats unless they're proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law.
>With the due respect I give to a friend like you, please spare me your self-righteous indignation.
>
Self righteous indignation ?
Your the only one guilty of that today.
I point fingers at democrats all the time, but I don't convict them of crimes before the courts do.

>>He's guilty until proven innocent is he not ? You do subcribe to this premise don't you ?
>
>Hmm..you mean innocent until proven guilty?
>
Yes, that's the one.
>

>>What "new revelations" do you speak of ?
>
>I've already pointed them out clearly in previous posts. An adament denial from the White House that Rove ever spoke with any reporter. Then we hear he DID speak with a reporter. Then we hear he didn't give her name, just the fact that it was Wilson's wife, and she worked for the CIA.
>
>In fact the slime trail Rove has left behind himself over the years of his political work is long and well documented. The end has always justified the means to him, even if it is dirty, untrue, and unethical.
>
Is that opinion or fact ?

>It's like coming to the defense of a sex offender on his 4th charge...
>"Yeah, he was guilty of the first three charges, but that doesn't mean there's any connection to this fourth charge against him."
>
Um, refresh my memory for me, what exactly were the previous charges against Mr. Rove ? I wasn't aware of any myself. . .


 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 12 10:30:48 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:

>I point fingers at democrats all the time, but I don't convict them of crimes before the courts do.

and that was my point, hif. I am pointing my finger at Rove. I have no power to convict him.



>Is that opinion or fact ?

it depends on who you ask. To conservatives it's unsubstantiated lies and propoganda spread by those evil liberals.
To rational open-minded people they're facts



>Um, refresh my memory for me, what exactly were the previous charges against Mr. Rove ? I wasn't aware of any myself. . .

It was a metaphor, hif. It shouldn't be taken literally, but as an example to illustrate a point I was trying to make about Rove.

____________________________
Just got notification that a friend of mine here who had been battling cancer died last night.
Immediately following that news my boss informed me that there's only a 30-40% chance that my company for the past 4 years will make it past October of this year.

I think I've just lost my will to argue today



 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 10:39:43 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  >Just got notification that a friend of mine here who had been battling cancer died last night.
>Immediately following that news my boss informed me that there's only a 30-40% chance that my company for the past 4 years will make it past October of this year.
>
>I think I've just lost my will to argue today
>
Sorry to hear about your friend Addie.
I fear at our age now, that this type of news will become not so uncommon anymore.

As to your company not surviving, I'm sure you will land on your feet.
The last three I've worked for did not survive so I know about that oh so insecure feeling you have right now.
Your a smart guy, you'll be fine, it's just a bitch starting over again.



 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 12 10:41:34 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  thanks hif. it means a lot.

I feel like crying


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 10:48:59 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>thanks hif. it means a lot.
>
>I feel like crying
>
Yeah, I know. . .
Was your friend sick for a long time ?


 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 12 11:04:00 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  yeah. I knew it was coming. He had to leave work about 2 months ago because it had spread to the point that it was basically untreatable.
A very nice guy. I know it's hard for his kids and wife right now.



*My god this is too depressing.
Okay, on to the sunny side of the street. If my company goes tits up, I can always go back to earning a living as Addi: Male Prostitute/Refrigerator Repairman


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 11:15:17 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Aren't refrigerators hard to fix?


 
Ed Posted: Tue Jul 12 11:48:09 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>I can always go back to earning a living as Addi: Male Prostitute/Refrigerator Repairman

So, do you
1)Come to fix the fridge and end up having sex with them and leaving without finishing the repairs?
2)Come to have sex with them, but notice that their fridge is broken and can't resist fixing it?
3)Come to have sex with them on the fridge, break it whilst banging, then fix it after it's over?


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 12 12:36:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>filthy mcnasty said:
>>Um, refresh my memory for me, what exactly were the previous charges against Mr. Rove ? I wasn't aware of any myself. . .
>
>It was a metaphor, hif. It shouldn't be taken literally, but as an example to illustrate a point I was trying to make about Rove.

Whoa let's not stop there. Rove's done plenty of shit, hif's just hiding behind 'no charges against him,' which assumes we live in a country where everyone is punished for what they do (I giggled when I wrote that).

And as for the e-mails proving Rove's innocence, they sort of mention him, uh, telling someone not in a position to know the identity CIA agent. Maybe (unlikely) it was just helping Cheney, but I don't see the point. He revealed the name of a CIA operative. Even if it wasn't in bad intentions, it's still horrible. As has been shown by Robert douche-bag-of-liberty Novak (who revealed Plame's name and received no jail time), it's not exactly a good idea to tell a reporter something that is classified.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 12 12:51:48 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I really don't like the wait between posting something political and waiting for hif to break it down into two sentence fragments and tell me why everything I said was completely wrong. It's really quite amazing that in about a year, I've never been right. Statistically I should be accidentally getting something right, but apparently not.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 13:50:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>addi said:
>>filthy mcnasty said:
>>>Um, refresh my memory for me, what exactly were the previous charges against Mr. Rove ? I wasn't aware of any myself. . .
>>
>>It was a metaphor, hif. It shouldn't be taken literally, but as an example to illustrate a point I was trying to make about Rove.
>
>Whoa let's not stop there. Rove's done plenty of shit, hif's just hiding behind 'no charges against him,' which assumes we live in a country where everyone is punished for what they do (I giggled when I wrote that).
>
>And as for the e-mails proving Rove's innocence, they sort of mention him, uh, telling someone not in a position to know the identity CIA agent. Maybe (unlikely) it was just helping Cheney, but I don't see the point. He revealed the name of a CIA operative. Even if it wasn't in bad intentions, it's still horrible. As has been shown by Robert douche-bag-of-liberty Novak (who revealed Plame's name and received no jail time), it's not exactly a good idea to tell a reporter something that is classified.
>
Exactly how do you know he revealed her by name ?
If he was guilty, why did he tell the reporter to go ahead and talk rather than go to jail as he was inclined to do?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 13:51:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>I really don't like the wait between posting something political and waiting for hif to break it down into two sentence fragments and tell me why everything I said was completely wrong. It's really quite amazing that in about a year, I've never been right. Statistically I should be accidentally getting something right, but apparently not.
>
Would that not work both ways ?
According to you I've been wrong every time as well. Absolutely amazing !

Of course it's true, you are always wrong. Get used to it.
:-)


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 12 14:22:18 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So why did you post the article that says Rove told a reporter Valerie Plame worked with the CIA?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 14:35:52 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>So why did you post the article that says Rove told a reporter Valerie Plame worked with the CIA?
>
That email was from Cooper to his boss at Newsweek, not from Rove.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 12 14:48:42 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Zacq said:
>>So why did you post the article that says Rove told a reporter Valerie Plame worked with the CIA?
>>
>That email was from Cooper to his boss at Newsweek, not from Rove.

... so why did you post the article that says Rove told a reporter Valerie Plame works with the CIA? Was there a reason?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 15:11:49 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>filthy mcnasty said:
>>Zacq said:
>>>So why did you post the article that says Rove told a reporter Valerie Plame worked with the CIA?
>>>
>>That email was from Cooper to his boss at Newsweek, not from Rove.
>
>... so why did you post the article that says Rove told a reporter Valerie Plame works with the CIA? Was there a reason?
>
Read it again, it does not say that.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 12 15:18:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So why did you post that article? What was the reason for posting this news?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 15:40:23 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>So why did you post that article? What was the reason for posting this news?
>
Go back to the beginning and read the whole thread.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 12 15:50:09 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Okay, so you don't know why you posted the article. Got it.

I'm not just trying to be annoying. I honestly don't think you know.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 15:56:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Okay, so you don't know why you posted the article. Got it.
>
>I'm not just trying to be annoying. I honestly don't think you know.
>
Nope, you're just trying to be annoying, but since that's what you're good at, I won't begrudge you your little annoyances.
If you can't figure out why I posted the article, then maybe this thread is just too grown up for you.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 12 16:16:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This was an article about an e-mail from Cooper that said Rove indicated Wilson's wife worked with the CIA. Rove's lawyer tries to defend him by saying the point was to prevent false information about Cheney, not reveal Plame's identity.

So either this article is true and Rove did tell Cooper Plame's job in the CIA, or it's not true and I'm really not sure why it was posted. Either way, Cooper was by no means the only reporter this information had been leaked to. Novak who reported on Plame had been told by CIA officials, oh sorry he claims to have 'mispoke' about that, had been told by two senior officials in the administration about Plame's CIA role.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 16:31:01 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Nowhere in the article is there evidence that Rove committed a crime.
The only implication against Rove is an email from Cooper to his boss that is vague at best. It certainly would be called hearsay in any court.
My question still stands - If Rove were in fact guilty, why did he give Cooper permission to reveal his sources when Cooper was willing to go to jail rather than disclose his sources ?


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 12 16:34:48 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>From the AP:
>
>New York Times reporter Judith Miller is in jail for refusing to reveal who in the administration talked to her about Plame.
>
>Cooper had also planned to go to jail rather than talk, but at the last minute he agreed to cooperate with investigators when a source, Rove, gave him permission to do so. Cooper's employer, Time Inc., also turned over Cooper's e-mail and notes.
>
>One of the e-mails was a note from Cooper to his boss in which he said he had spoken to Rove, who described the wife of former U.S. Ambassador and Bush administration critic Joe Wilson as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, Newsweek magazine reported.
>
>It said "Wilson's wife" — not CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney — authorized a trip by Wilson to Africa. The purpose was to check out reports that Iraq had tried to obtain yellowcake uranium for use in nuclear weapons.

So far we have Rove telling Cooper of Plame's, sorry, 'Wilson's wife's' job. On a side note, the CIA denies that Valerie Plame was responsible for choosing Wilson for his assignment.

>Rove's conversation with Cooper took place five days after Plame's husband suggested in a New York Times op-ed piece that the Bush administration had manipulated intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq. Wilson's trip to Africa provided the basis for his criticism.
>
>Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, said his client did not disclose Plame's name. Luskin declined to say how Rove found out that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and refused to say how Rove came across the information that it was Wilson's wife who authorized his trip to Africa.
>
>"In the conversation, Karl is warning Cooper not to get too far out in front of the story," Luskin said. "There were false allegations out there that Vice President Cheney sent Wilson to Niger and that Wilson had reported back to Cheney about his trip to Niger. Neither was true."

Luskin is not saying Rove didn't reveal Valerie Plame's position, only that her name wasn't used. He didn't mean Rove hadn't said anything concerning her, or he wouldn't have denied knowing how Rove knew about Plame, he would have said he hadn't, or wouldn't have said, as he does below:

>"A fair-minded reading of Cooper's e-mail is that Rove was trying to discourage Time magazine from circulating false allegations about Cheney, not trying to encourage them by saying anything about Wilson or his wife."


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 12 16:38:59 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Nowhere in the article is there evidence that Rove committed a crime.
>The only implication against Rove is an email from Cooper to his boss that is vague at best. It certainly would be called hearsay in any court.
>My question still stands - If Rove were in fact guilty, why did he give Cooper permission to reveal his sources when Cooper was willing to go to jail rather than disclose his sources ?

So.. Rove is innocent because an article you presented doesn't prove him guilty? If only I could use that technique.

As for the question, this is what I read concerning Rove's 'permission':

* July 6 - Around 7:30 in the morning, Matthew Cooper prepares to leave for court, resigned that he may end up in jail for refusing to reveal his source. His lawyer, Richard Sauber, calls to alert him to a statement from Robert Luskin (Karl Rove's lawyer) in The Wall Street Journal which states:

"If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source," Mr. Luskin told The Journal, "it's not Karl he's protecting."

Sauber expess the opnion that may be construed as a specific waiver. Cooper and Sauber concure to have Sauber call Luskin to verfy that this can be taken as a waiver to testify. Sauber, calls Luskin and asks for reassurance that the earlier waiver encompassed Rove's discussions with Cooper. Luskin checks with Patrick Fitzgerald as to whether more specific consent was necessary, Fitzgerald says no there doesn't need to be a more specifci waiver, and then gives that consent to Cooper.

In court shortly after 2, Cooper tells Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the Federal District Court in Washington that he had received "an express personal release from my source."

This statement surpris Luskin, saying he had only reaffirmed the blanket waiver, in response to a request from Fitzgerald.

Cooper then says to the press that he received the permission in "somewhat dramatic fashion."


Whether or not this is true or makes any sense, it certainly helps confuse the issue (a common tactic of Rove). It also helps his case to let Cooper testify simply because that makes him seem more innocent. He might as well have, as the information would have gotten out soon. As I said, other reporters knew this, including Novak who cited two senior officials.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 12 16:42:45 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I might've spaced that all out a bit, but I was afraid after I said "So.. Rove is innocent because an article you presented doesn't prove him guilty? If only I could use that technique", you would immediately say 'But you haven't proven him guilty' which of course I haven't, I've been too busy dealing with your article.

I've recently heard postulated that the Bush administration's plan lately has been not to bother protecting itself from bad media coverage but to 'poison the system' so any discussion about its wrongdoings can be discredited.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 16:53:41 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>I might've spaced that all out a bit, but I was afraid after I said "So.. Rove is innocent because an article you presented doesn't prove him guilty? If only I could use that technique", you would immediately say 'But you haven't proven him guilty' which of course I haven't, I've been too busy dealing with your article.
>
No, it doesn't make him innocent, it also doesn't make him guilty, that's my point.




 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 12 17:12:00 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>No, it doesn't make him innocent, it also doesn't make him guilty, that's my point.

Let the laughter subside. Okay.

I just made the point that after you stop defending your article, which would take a considerable amount of posts, you might try and say I haven't done anything to prove his guilt. I ended by saying 'of course I haven't, I've been too busy dealing with your article.'

You then said that 'it doesn't make him guilty'. So you said exactly what I knew and said you were going to say. Holy krap.


I'm not completely sure whether you're saying I haven't proven him guilty (which has now been explained twice) or the article doesn't prove him guilty. But AGAIN, you posting an article that doesn't prove Karl Rove guilty isn't evidence of his innocence.

Now PLEASE do not respond by saying I haven't proven Rove guilty. I've been too busy having my time wasted.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 21:43:20 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>filthy mcnasty said:
>>No, it doesn't make him innocent, it also doesn't make him guilty, that's my point.
>
>Let the laughter subside. Okay.
>
>I just made the point that after you stop defending your article, which would take a considerable amount of posts, you might try and say I haven't done anything to prove his guilt. I ended by saying 'of course I haven't, I've been too busy dealing with your article.'
>
>You then said that 'it doesn't make him guilty'. So you said exactly what I knew and said you were going to say. Holy krap.
>
>
>I'm not completely sure whether you're saying I haven't proven him guilty (which has now been explained twice) or the article doesn't prove him guilty. But AGAIN, you posting an article that doesn't prove Karl Rove guilty isn't evidence of his innocence.
>
>Now PLEASE do not respond by saying I haven't proven Rove guilty. I've been too busy having my time wasted.
>
You wasted way too much time asking me to explain why I posted the article in the first place. DUH !
I'm sure your time is very valuable.

btw - no one has produced even a shred of evidence that Rove is guilty.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 21:49:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Lawyer: Cooper “Burned” Karl Rove
Rove’s attorney talks to NRO.



The lawyer for top White House adviser Karl Rove says that Time reporter Matthew Cooper "burned" Rove after a conversation between the two men concerning former ambassador Joseph Wilson's fact-finding mission to Niger and the role Wilson's wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, played in arranging that trip. Nevertheless, attorney Robert Luskin says Rove long ago gave his permission for all reporters, including Cooper, to tell prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about their conversations with Rove.

In an interview with National Review Online, Luskin compared the contents of a July 11, 2003, internal Time e-mail written by Cooper with the wording of a story Cooper co-wrote a few days later. "By any definition, he burned Karl Rove," Luskin said of Cooper. "If you read what Karl said to him and read how Cooper characterizes it in the article, he really spins it in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to them to report negative information about Plame."

First the e-mail. According to a report in Newsweek, Cooper's e-mail to Time Washington bureau chief Michael Duffy said, "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation..." Cooper said that Rove had warned him away from getting "too far out on Wilson," and then passed on Rove's statement that neither Vice President Dick Cheney nor CIA Director George Tenet had picked Wilson for the trip; "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." Finally — all of this is according to the Newsweek report — Cooper's e-mail said that "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly that there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger..."

A few days after sending the e-mail, Cooper co-wrote an article headlined "A War on Wilson?" that appeared on Time's website. The story began, "Has the Bush administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Perhaps."

The story continued:

Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.

Plame's role in Wilson's assignment was later confirmed by a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation.

Luskin told NRO that the circumstances of Rove's conversation with Cooper undercut Time's suggestion of a White House "war on Wilson." According to Luskin, Cooper originally called Rove — not the other way around — and said he was working on a story on welfare reform. After some conversation about that issue, Luskin said, Cooper changed the subject to the weapons of mass destruction issue, and that was when the two had the brief talk that became the subject of so much legal wrangling. According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are "indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out."

"Look at the Cooper e-mail," Luskin continues. "Karl speaks to him on double super secret background...I don't think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson's wife."

Nor, says Luskin, was Rove trying to "out" a covert CIA agent or "smear" her husband. "What Karl was trying to do, in a very short conversation initiated by Cooper on another subject, was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false." Luskin points out that on the evening of July 11, 2003, just hours after the Rove-Cooper conversation, then-CIA Director George Tenet released a statement that undermined some of Wilson's public assertions about his report. "Karl knew that that [Tenet] statement was in gestation," says Luskin. "I think a fair reading of the e-mail was that he was trying to warn Cooper off from going out on a limb on [Wilson's] allegations."

Luskin also shed light on the waiver that Rove signed releasing Cooper from any confidentiality agreement about the conversation. Luskin says Rove originally signed a waiver in December 2003 or in January 2004 (Luskin did not remember the exact date). The waiver, Luskin continues, was written by the office of special prosecutor Fitzgerald, and Rove signed it without making any changes — with the understanding that it applied to anyone with whom he had discussed the Wilson/Plame matter. "It was everyone's expectation that the waiver would be as broad as it could be," Luskin says.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller have expressed concerns that such waivers (top Cheney aide Lewis Libby also signed one) might have been coerced and thus might not have represented Rove's true feelings. Yet from the end of 2003 or beginning of 2004, until last Wednesday, Luskin says, Rove had no idea that there might be any problem with the waiver.

It was not until that Wednesday, the day Cooper was to appear in court, that that changed. "Cooper's lawyer called us and said, "Can you confirm that the waiver encompasses Cooper?" Luskin recalls. "I was amazed. He's a lawyer. It's not rocket science. [The waiver] says 'any person.' It's that broad. So I said, 'Look, I understand that you want reassurances. If Fitzgerald would like Karl to provide you with some other assurances, we will.'" Luskin says he got in touch with the prosecutor — "Rule number one is cooperate with Fitzgerald, and there is no rule number two," Luskin says — and asked what to do. According to Luskin, Fitzgerald said to go ahead, and Luskin called Cooper's lawyer back. "I said that I can reaffirm that the waiver that Karl signed applied to any conversations that Karl and Cooper had," Luskin says. After that — which represented no change from the situation that had existed for 18 months — Cooper made a dramatic public announcement and agreed to testify.

A few other notes: Luskin declined to say how Rove knew that Plame "apparently" (to use Cooper's word) worked at the CIA. But Luskin told NRO that Rove is not hiding behind the defense that he did not identify Wilson's wife because he did not specifically use her name. Asked if that argument was too legalistic, Luskin said, "I agree with you. I think it's a detail."

Luskin also addressed the question of whether Rove is a "subject" of the investigation. Luskin says Fitzgerald has told Rove he is not a "target" of the investigation, but, according to Luskin, Fitzgerald has also made it clear that virtually anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation, including Rove, is considered a "subject" of the probe. "'Target' is something we all understand, a very alarming term," Luskin says. On the other hand, Fitzgerald "has indicated to us that he takes a very broad view of what a subject is."

Finally, Luskin conceded that Rove is legally free to publicly discuss his actions, including his grand-jury testimony. Rove has not spoken publicly, Luskin says, because Fitzgerald specifically asked him not to.




 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 12 23:09:34 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>You wasted way too much time asking me to explain why I posted the article in the first place. DUH !

One more time.

We bantered about an article because there appeared to be no reason to post it. After a few posts that I was pretty sure would make you stop bothering to defend the damn thing, I basically said 'now don't say it doesn't matter because you haven't proven him guilty' because the reason I hadn't been able to talk about anything else was your stupid article. You then said essentially exactly what I said you would, apparently oblivious to logic. I told you why the post you were thinking of didn't make sense before you posted it, and you posted it anyway.

Open call to the GTverse - I'm pretty sure that hif ain't gonna get this from me telling him because a Zacq post sets off the Coulter Treason alarm. Can someone else try?


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 12 23:14:49 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Wait is that a second article indicating that Rove revealed a CIA agent's name? I'm pretty sure it is.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 12 23:52:33 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>"In the conversation, Karl is warning Cooper not to get too far out in front of the story," Luskin said. "There were false allegations out there that Vice President Cheney sent Wilson to Niger and that Wilson had reported back to Cheney about his trip to Niger. Neither was true."

Whoa there. Where are these false allegations from? The only time I'd actually heard about this was Republicans against Wilson, who say that he claimed his trip was authorized by Cheney or Tenet. Here's what Wilson actually said:

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government."


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Jul 13 12:45:07 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm now pretty sure that the false allegations that Wilson was sent by Cheney or Tenet were started and spreaded completely by conservatives. Here's a recent statement by RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman:

"Wilson falsely claimed that it was the Vice President Cheney who sent him to Niger, but the vice president has said he never met him and didn't know who sent him."

And it's based mostly on this quote by Wilson:

"What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, i believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself..."


And now, here's the actual context of this comment:

BLITZER: I know you were sent to go on this mission long before the State of the Union Address. When Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, was on this program a few weeks ago, on July 13th, I asked her about your mission. Listen to this exchange I had with her.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I didn't know Joe Wilson was going to Niger. And if you look in Director Tenet's statement, it says that counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, sent Joe Wilson. So, I don't know...

BLITZER: Who sent him?

RICE: Well, it was certainly not at a level that had anything to do with the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Is that true?

WILSON: Well, look, it's absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger.

What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself...

BLITZER: Scooter Libby is the chief of staff for the vice president.

WILSON: Scooter Libby.

They asked essentially that we follow up on this report -- that the agency follow up on the report. So it was a question that went to the CIA briefer from the Office of the Vice President. The CIA, at the operational level, made a determination that the best way to answer this serious question was to send somebody out there who knew something about both the uranium business and those Niger officials that were in office at the time these reported documents were executed.



Now to me, that looks the RNC Chairman lying his ass off.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 14 07:03:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The allegations came from Wilsons own mouth.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 10:23:01 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>The allegations came from Wilsons own mouth.

So I post that he never said that, and even show the quote that the Republican party claims proves he did, and you respond with a claim backed up by a void of evidence.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 14 11:06:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  From National Review:

July 14, 2005, 8:47 a.m.
Plame Wars


There is a lot that we still don’t know about the case of Valerie Plame, so it would be premature to proclaim that Karl Rove has either been vindicated or discredited. Definitive judgments are going to have to wait for more information. What we know so far is far from damning.

You may recall the background of this story. In the summer of 2003, Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed for the New York Times stating that his official fact-finding trip to Niger had uncovered no evidence that Saddam Hussein had acquired uranium from that country. This datum was thought to be relevant to the controversy then swirling over whether the president had dissembled in that year’s State of the Union address about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program. When Robert Novak reported that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was “[a CIA] operative on weapons of mass destruction” who had played a role in sending Wilson to Niger, the Bush administration’s foes charged that the White House had outed her as a covert operative as a way to punish Wilson for causing it trouble.

In recent days, we have learned that in the days before Novak’s column appeared, Karl Rove told Matthew Cooper of Time that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.

But the statute that criminalizes the disclosure of covert operatives’ identities names is narrowly worded. For Rove to have committed a crime, he would have to have known that Plame worked undercover and that the CIA was taking active steps to conceal her identity. (In truth, the CIA seemed to be taking more active steps to undermine Bush’s Iraq policy than to conceal Plame’s identity.) As yet, we have no reason to think that he did.

The context of Rove’s conversation, as relayed in an e-mail from Cooper to colleagues, also tends to undercut the theory that he was trying to punish Wilson. Rove told Cooper not to believe everything Wilson said. (The wisdom of that warning has been amply documented over the last two years.) Wilson had made it sound as though the vice president’s office had asked for him to make his trip. (See, for instance, Nicholas Kristof’s May 6, 2003, column in the New York Times.) Rove appears to have brought up the fact that Wilson’s wife had suggested him in order to minimize the White House’s role in his trip. That context does not affect his legal position, but it does tell against the claim that Rove was trying to punish Wilson.

If it was Cooper who initiated the call and brought up the Iraqi-weapons issue — as Rove’s lawyer told NR’s Byron York earlier this week — the claim that the White House was out to punish Wilson is undercut further.


“We doubt that there will be
firing offenses here, still less
indictable ones.”

This may turn out to be a case of errors of judgment, not of malice. Rove may have played a role in the disclosure of a covert operative’s name (although right now we do not even know that). Even if that disclosure ultimately had no great effect on national security and even if it was inadvertent, a White House official should know better. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, meanwhile, has made misleading statements about Rove’s involvement in this case. We do not know whether those statements were deliberately misleading or uninformed.

We also do not know the identity of Novak’s source — or that of the source of Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter who is in prison for refusing to reveal it.

Rove’s lawyer told York that the prosecutor in the Plame case has said that Rove is not a target of his but asked Rove not to comment on the investigation. At the appropriate time, Rove and McClellan may owe some apologies. But we doubt that there will be firing offenses here, still less indictable ones. Democrats searching for a way to best the man who has done more than anyone but President Bush to win the last three elections, and reporters on the hunt for a big second-term scandal, will have to look elsewhere.




 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 11:22:17 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Wilson had made it sound as though the vice president’s office had asked for him to make his trip. (See, for instance, Nicholas Kristof’s May 6, 2003, column in the New York Times.)

I'm not discussing the rest of that article until we finish on this. You said that the allegations came from Wilson's mouth, and that article claims evidence of this to be in Kristof's May 6th column.

Here it is.


By Nicholas D. Kristof
Op-Ed Columnist, New York Times

When I raised the Mystery of the Missing W.M.D. recently, hawks fired barrages of reproachful e-mail at me. The gist was: "You *&#*! Who cares if we never find weapons of mass destruction, because we've liberated the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant."

But it does matter, enormously, for American credibility. After all, as Ari Fleischer said on April 10 about W.M.D.: "That is what this war was about."

I rejoice in the newfound freedoms in Iraq. But there are indications that the U.S. government souped up intelligence, leaned on spooks to change their conclusions and concealed contrary information to deceive people at home and around the world.

Let's fervently hope that tomorrow we find an Iraqi superdome filled with 500 tons of mustard gas and nerve gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several dozen Scud missiles, gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, 18 mobile biological warfare factories, long-range unmanned aerial vehicles to dispense anthrax, and proof of close ties with Al Qaeda. Those are the things that President Bush or his aides suggested Iraq might have, and I don't want to believe that top administration officials tried to win support for the war with a campaign of wholesale deceit.

Consider the now-disproved claims by President Bush and Colin Powell that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger so it could build nuclear weapons. As Seymour Hersh noted in The New Yorker, the claims were based on documents that had been forged so amateurishly that they should never have been taken seriously.

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted — except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.

"It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," one insider said.

Another example is the abuse of intelligence from Hussein Kamel, a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein and head of Iraq's biological weapons program until his defection in 1995. Top British and American officials kept citing information from Mr. Kamel as evidence of a huge secret Iraqi program, even though Mr. Kamel had actually emphasized that Iraq had mostly given up its W.M.D. program in the early 1990's. Glen Rangwala, a British Iraq expert, says the transcript of Mr. Kamel's debriefing was leaked because insiders resented the way politicians were misleading the public.

Patrick Lang, a former head of Middle Eastern affairs in the Defense Intelligence Agency, says that he hears from those still in the intelligence world that when experts wrote reports that were skeptical about Iraq's W.M.D., "they were encouraged to think it over again."

"In this administration, the pressure to get product `right' is coming out of O.S.D. [the Office of the Secretary of Defense]," Mr. Lang said. He added that intelligence experts had cautioned that Iraqis would not necessarily line up to cheer U.S. troops and that the Shiite clergy could be a problem. "The guys who tried to tell them that came to understand that this advice was not welcome," he said.

"The intelligence that our officials was given regarding W.M.D. was either defective or manipulated," Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico noted. Another senator is even more blunt and, sadly, exactly right: "Intelligence was manipulated."

The C.I.A. was terribly damaged when William Casey, its director in the Reagan era, manipulated intelligence to exaggerate the Soviet threat in Central America to whip up support for Ronald Reagan's policies. Now something is again rotten in the state of Spookdom.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 14 11:38:49 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger.
>
Does that not sound like Cheney to you ?


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 11:47:11 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Kristof's Comment:
"I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger."

Wilson's Comment:
"They asked essentially that we follow up on this report -- that the agency follow up on the report. So it was a question that went to the CIA briefer from the Office of the Vice President. The CIA, at the operational level, made a determination that the best way to answer this serious question was to send somebody out there who knew something about both the uranium business and those Niger officials that were in office at the time these reported documents were executed."

So Kristof says that Cheney wanted more information on the uranium issue, and so 'a former U.S. ambassador was dispatched to Niger.' That does NOT say Cheney sent Wilson. In fact, it makes perfect sense when read along with Wilson who says that Cheney wanted a followup, as Kristof says, and so the CIA sent Wilson, as Kristof says.

Kristof is not saying Cheney sent Wilson, and even if he was, you said the allegations came from Wilson's mouth, which you have yet to show.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jul 14 12:10:11 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  oh give it up.
Rove is as guilty as sin..not only regarding this matter, but his list of dirty deeds is longer than Jacob Marley's chain in "A Christmas Carol".

Hif, it's okay to diss a republican. I promise you'll still keep your red, white, and blue soul..and you can keep supporting the president and be patriotic at the same time.

Not that long ago thousands of democrats voiced their disgust for Clinton's act of stupidity in the oval office. They made a distinction between the act of one person and their party's values and beliefs.
Your refusal to admit that Rove (or any current conservative Republicans) have ever screwed up reminds me of a talk I once had with my older sister. We were discussing evolution and she refused to believe in it because it was essential to her faith that she holds on to a view of biblical inerrancy. The theory of evolution would mean that the world wasn't literally created in 6 days, like the Bible clearly states. So a basic foundation of her belief system would be shot to hell, and she would be opening the door for doubt and the eventual crumbling of her faith as she sees it.
My point is that Democrats have a long history of questioning republicans,
as well as members of their own party.
And that's okay. It's healthy and vital to a strong democracy i think.

You can believe in God and also believe in the theory of evolution.
You can be a conservative republican and still acknowledge now and then that there are some bad apples in this administration (this may come as a shock, but republicans are human just like the rest of humanity).
Us stinkin' liberals here promise we won't think you've gone soft on us, in fact our respect for your political views would probably increase.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 14 13:58:31 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>oh give it up.
>Rove is as guilty as sin>Us stinkin' liberals here promise we won't think you've gone soft on us, in fact our respect for your political views would probably increase.
>
Sorry dude, you will not swing me over to the dark side on this one.
I don't believe Rove is guilty of anything here.
Hell it's been brought into question now whether or not Ms Wilson (Plame ?) status was covert or not.

Besides, Zacq is getting totally anal about changing the subject of this thread to who made the false allegations in the first place and not about Roves' complicity.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 14:01:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Besides, Zacq is getting totally anal about changing the subject of this thread to who made the false allegations in the first place and not about Roves' complicity.

Actually I wanted to get into more interesting matters such as Novak and did Rove know Plame was covert, but then you said something completely untrue and I want you to admit it was wrong. Do you still say that Wilson claimed he was sent by Cheney or Tenet?

And also, if these allegations were invented by the Republican side, Rove wasn't really telling Cooper about Plame just to stop misinformation, but before you talk about anything else face up to your statement.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 14:04:16 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Also important, if it's true Wilson never claimed he was sent by Cheney or Tenet half of the Republicans' current fight to defend Rove is based on a lie which needs to be addressed. One last time, you said "The allegations came from Wilsons own mouth."


 
addi Posted: Thu Jul 14 14:13:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:

>I don't believe Rove is guilty of anything here.

: )
I knew it was a pie in the sky post. I just felt better after typing it.
I honestly don't really believe I'll ever read a post from you admitting to the guilt or wrongdoing of any republican closely associated to this administration ever....

...even after half of them are forced to resign or put in prison before 2008


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 14:15:51 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>filthy mcnasty said:
>
>>I don't believe Rove is guilty of anything here.
>
>: )
>I knew it was a pie in the sky post. I just felt better after typing it.
>I honestly don't really believe I'll ever read a post from you admitting to the guilt or wrongdoing of any republican closely associated to this administration ever....
>
>...even after half of them are forced to resign or put in prison before 2008

Please just hold on a minute Addison, I think if we can make him at least admit one comment he's made was wrong, it'll be a start.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 14 14:15:55 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Us stinkin' liberals here promise we won't think you've gone soft on us, in fact our respect for your political views would probably increase.
>
Addie, with the exception of you and Crim, I don't think there are any liberals in GT. A lot of far left wingers but none I would call a liberal.
As far as respect for my political views, that's out the window and I don't really care.
I know what's coming as soon as I post anything political. Usually that's why I post them. To get the shit stirred up.
I'm most definitely a conservative, but not as far right as most of you believe.
Truth be told, there are not that many GT'ers left who's respect would mean anything to me these days.
I don't mean this as a slam to those who post here, but merely a statement that things have changed a lot during my tenure here.
That doesn't mean I don't like some people, just means I don't care whether they respect my politics or not.
I know what I believe in and I respect what you believe in, but if you think I'm stupid because I'm conservative, then you reveal your own ignorance.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 14 14:44:48 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>I know what I believe in and I respect what you believe in, but if you think I'm stupid because I'm conservative, then you reveal your own ignorance.
>
just a clarification, the above statement is not directed at anyone in particular, it's just a statement of how I view my politics.




 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 14 14:53:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Also important, if it's true Wilson never claimed he was sent by Cheney or Tenet half of the Republicans' current fight to defend Rove is based on a lie which needs to be addressed. One last time, you said "The allegations came from Wilsons own mouth."
>
Maybe you should read Mr. Wilsons' own op-ed piece he wrote for the NYT.
It most definitely and clearly implies that Cheney sent him on his little mission.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 15:01:46 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  What I Didn't Find in Africa
by Joseph C. Wilson 4th


Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.



If don't think I've read all of these articles before and have links to them you're wrong. Here's what this article says concerning who sent Wilson:

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Wilson says, as he said on CNN in the transcript before, that Cheney wanted more information on the subject, and so CIA officials sent Wilson. Wilson later on TV makes it clearer by specifically saying Cheney knew nothing of the trip. Just admit you're wrong so we can actually continue discussing Rove or something productive.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 15:03:49 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer.

This, out of context, could be used to say Cheney asked him, but in context with what he said it earlier, it is absolutely clear that this means Cheney's office wanted to know, and so CIA officials asked Wilson.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 14 15:09:27 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>>Wilson says, as he said on CNN in the transcript before, that Cheney wanted more information on the subject, and so CIA officials sent Wilson. Wilson later on TV makes it clearer by specifically saying Cheney knew nothing of the trip. Just admit you're wrong so we can actually continue discussing Rove or something productive.
>
If you refuse to admit that the article implies that he was sent by Cheney, then we are at an impasse and you are farther left than Al Franken, and know absolutely nothing about diplomatic language.
As for whether or not we can continue our discussion about Rove, I couldn't care less. As far as productive, I'm afraid that's out the window too.



 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 15:25:17 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

Hif imagine you're reading this for the first time, without the idea in your head that Cheney sending him would mean anything. So you're reading this paragraph, and you come across the sentence "The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

What part of you is seeing an implication? Is it when he says 'the agency officials asked' or when he says 'so THEY could provide an response to the vice president's OFFICE' (emphasis mine). I see nothing but a group with Cheney talking with a group of the CIA, and there's no damn implication Cheney told Wilson to go. There is absolutely none.


I can't make this any more obvious. Wilson said agency officials sent him. Later, he not only says agency officials sent him, but that the Vice President didn't even know about it, and that's the occasion Republicans are somehow using to prove he did say Cheney sent him.

You, after I gave evidence that the attacks against Wilson are lies, which is relevant to the Rove case, said something with no evidence. I demanded you give it and you tried. I showed that the evidence didn't support your argument and you tried to cite Wilson's argument, and now you're going to attempt to say it's not a big deal (even though you were willing to argue it for several posts) and that we just can't agree. That's right - we cannot agree if you won't be honest about posts you made. You said Wilson claimed Cheney sent him because people have been saying that, but there is no evidence of this except apparently Wilson saying the opposite. I have no idea what kind of grand politics you think you're supporting if you can't even have a discussion with a bit of integrity. Now I'm pretty sure your next post (and telling you what you're going to type hasn't stopped you before) will be some general statement about I don't understand politics or where you're coming from, but all I've been trying to do is keep you from pulling the same krap of day time news pundits and uninformed morons, because it's pretty clear you're not either of those.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 15:26:33 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>I showed that the evidence didn't support your argument and you tried to cite Wilson's argument,

Wilson's article


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 14 15:37:16 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  As I said, we are at an impasse, because it is patently clear to me that he implied he was sent by the office of the vice-president.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 15:45:09 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Is anyone else reading this that can tell hif he's insane? The only wording in this article is 'agency officials sent me.' If this were a reading comprehension test from previous years at school, when you got to the four multiple choice questions one would be 'Who sent Wilson to Africa?' and the kids who didn't really read it would remember seeing the name Cheney and would circle it and be wrong. You defend Rove with innocent until proven guilty? Read the article assuming that Wilson is telling the truth (we know the parts concerning weapons are, as the Bush administration has admitted). If you later heard Wilson in NO WAY change his story but include because of a Condoleeza Rice comment that the higher-ups didn't read his article, wouldn't that confirm your initial assumptions that when Wilson says he was sent by agency officials he was? Explain to me in what way he could've worded being sent by agency officials who did so because of the Cheney office without drawing it out into five paragraphs, which would be ridiculous because this was a minor aspect of the article.

If you skipped all that and are just reading the end, explain how the hell he implies Cheney sent him, because if you say it can't be explained, I don't see any reason why not to actually interpret Wilson's words as the actual words he wrote. He didn't say Cheney sent him. He later said Cheney didn't send him. Clearly, if the RNC Chairman thinks the best evidence of Wilson making the claim is a sentence (fragment) surrounded by sentences proving the exact opposite, this article doesn't hold the obvious 'truth' that he wants.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jul 14 16:02:31 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:

>I know what I believe in and I respect what you believe in, but if you think I'm stupid because I'm conservative, then you reveal your own ignorance.

Stupid is a loaded word, and can imply a wide array of mental deficiencies. It's too encompassing and general to apply here. I don't think you are a stupid person, hif. I believe you are quite intelligent as a person.

If we define it here strickly in the realm of politics, then, yes, I think most conservative right wingers are stupid, but I limit that to political stupidness. My opinion is that as a group they're close-minded, inflexible, intolerant, and misguided.
I fear any group that is unwilling to critically look at their belief system and sincerely question the actions of those in authority. My job is studying history, and there are too many examples of what can happen when citizens let a person in authority run unchecked. I believe there's way too much stubborness and blind loyalty amoung the majority of Bush supporters, that willingly choose to not take a critical, objective hard look at what is going on around them. Some delude themselves into thinking they are looking at both sides of an issue, but the reality is that these people only see what they want to see. Like I've said several times before, there can be a wolf in the herd and these people will look you in the eye and swear it's only a harmless puppy. They're too comfortable in their secure black and white world. Questioning stirs up the mud and can be very unsettling to their clear tidy compartmentalized life.

And I have to sincerely admit that there are many areas that I am "stupid" about (no false modesty). My understanding of science is weak. My grasp of technology leaves a lot to be desired. My math comprehension SUCKS. I could list many more mental deficiencies, but you get my point. I am fairly intelligent in some areas and "stupid" in others...who "Addi" is is a mix of both. You could say I'm stuptelligent.
: )



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 14 16:15:33 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I have no problems questioning authority, I was a hippie in my younger days.
I don't blindly follow my leaders but when I get behind someone, I support them 100% until they give me a reason not to support them.
Bush is my guy. I like him. I trust him.
He has not yet abused that trust to me.
You talk about blind loyalty, but what about blind hatred that you harbor for this man ?
Would you deny that blind hatred is just as dangerous as blind loyalty ?
I'll bet you would even deny that you harbor blind hatred for Bush, but it is painfully obvious that you do.
I don't care if you do or not, it's your right to do as you wish.
And I don't consider you to be stupid politically, I just think you and I look at one object and see different things. I respect your intelligence and know that I am not always right, but I do know what I believe in and will always stick to my guns.

Zacq, you need some fucking valium !


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 16:36:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Zacq, you need some fucking valium !

Thus ends one of the classic arguing patterns of the pathetic. You've brought up piece of evidence after article after whatever to defend a dumb comment you could've just admitted was wrong, until the argument has gone on so long and the person with logic on their side is frustrated at your apparent mental block. Then comes either a joke about me taking it too seriously as if you hadn't been in the argument, or 'clearly we're not going to agree on this' or 'we're at an impasse (because I'm not going to own up).' And you'll appear justified in saying so because this is a silly thing to argue over, but the point isn't about Wilson it's that you won't be honest.

This was a question of how long it was till you'd stop arguing and stop talking about it, not how long it would take you to admit it because there's no way you were going to do that.

I'm further left than Al Franken? For one, you know absolutely nothing about Al Franken. I listened to him today, and you know what? He made generalizations about the Rove case providing detail to the full extent that proves them. It sounded like a liberal talking points version of the story, and I stopped listening to it. I'm actually trying to get this straight, and I was curious if someone actually being argued with could produce evidence of Wilson making the claim, and I'm now fully convinced there is none whether you'll admit you know it or not.

Political argument could be one of the great things about our country if the people taking part would refrain from making statements without thinking about them first and having backup, unless they're willing to explain they're wrong when they do.

Your last attempt at defense, which it seems you're going to abandon rather than explain, is that Wilson implied Cheney sent him. Looking at the text, that was a minor detail, and in the small sections it was mentioned it was very clearly worded. Looking from the perspective of Wilson, he had no reason to lie about that, and clearly was intending on pretending Cheney sent him given his later comments. The whole Cheney issue began simply because they wanted Wilson to be wrong, but we now know he was correct about Niger. If we'd known from the beginning, none of these allegations would have ever come up. They're a result of people searching for the possibility of a lie to discredit a man, who again, we know was right about the main issue at hand. And to top it off, the only point I had been trying to prove in this thread, that we do know, regardless of intentions, that the information of Wilson's wife's occupation passed from the brain of Rove to Cooper, you managed to repeatedly deny despite Rove's lawyer having admitted Rove said it, trying to defend him through other means.

I'm basically posting this for anyone else reading this thread (I think only Addi) because I'm 99% certain you're going to write this off as a baseless rant, but I'm also 99% certain anyone reading this can see not that Rove is guilty or that Republicans are horrible or that you're completely wrong, but that you did say an untruth and are refusing to even acknowledge you may have spoken too soon.


This is my 1000th post if you count the 280 I lost during the last server crash (I'm almost certain it was 280 posts). It's about the same as when I started, only the first time we had a thread long argument I was the one just trying to prolong the noise because I didn't have evidence on my side, only an assumption.

Can I start filling out forms to enter slutterdom or is there a slection process and board of elders? I'd like to know if I have to start sucking up to anyone.

And Valium is bad for you. Tom Cruise said so.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 16:38:07 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Damn, I forgot about my post on the search engine thread. That was really my 1001st.

I really should stop bothering to capitalize and grammarize my sentences. Too formal.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jul 14 17:46:52 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Damn, I forgot about my post on the search engine thread. That was really my 1001st.
>

Woohoo! 1001 posts!! You should go out and celebrate the event...maybe go to a strip club, or pass out Al Franken tracts outside tonight's Young Republicans meeting...just make sure you take that valium first!
: )


And hif...I don't suffer fools well, therefore I dislike Bush. I don't literally hate him as a person, it's more like I pity him. If Rove, and Cheney, and Daddy were not around him he'd be totally lost and kinda pathetic. He can't think on his own, he can't talk to save his life...he's really a puppet president where others are controlling the strings and what comes out of his mouth and his actions.
I disliked Nixon too, but at least he was intelligent and stood on his own two feet (his paranoid nature was his eventual downfall). I firmly believe the president of the united states should be smarter than me. Bush isn't. Bush has his misguided convictions, but that shouldn't be confused with intelligence.
My strong dislike for Bush isn't dangerous or blind. My rants come out of my mouth and then fall harmlessly to the ground and die. Despite my words, Bush will continue to lead us down the wrong path, will continue to create more terrorists, will continue to have our soldiers killed by fighting Iraqis, and will continue to ruin the environment and the economy over the next 4 years...and there ain't a thing i can do about it...cept drink margaritas on Fridays


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 14 18:46:29 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:

>And hif...I don't suffer fools well, therefore I dislike Bush. I don't literally hate him as a person, it's more like I pity him. If Rove, and Cheney, and Daddy were not around him he'd be totally lost and kinda pathetic. He can't think on his own, he can't talk to save his life...he's really a puppet president where others are controlling the strings and what comes out of his mouth and his actions.
>
If he were a democrat that would be called intelligent enough to pick an excellent cabinet.
>I disliked Nixon too, but at least he was intelligent and stood on his own two feet (his paranoid nature was his eventual downfall). I firmly believe the president of the united states should be smarter than me. Bush isn't. Bush has his misguided convictions, but that shouldn't be confused with intelligence.
>
I consider him to be very intelligent and not misguided, these are just opinions we have here, not facts.


>My strong dislike for Bush isn't dangerous or blind.
>
Yes, I believe they are blind. There is nothing this man can say or do that will ever get a nod of approval from you.

My rants come out of my mouth and then fall harmlessly to the ground and die. Despite my words, Bush will continue to lead us down the wrong path, will continue to create more terrorists, will continue to have our soldiers killed by fighting Iraqis, and will continue to ruin the environment and the economy over the next 4 years...and there ain't a thing i can do about it
>
You see, that's a fallacy. There is no evidence that he is creating terrorist by fight this war. Terrorist don't become killers because we are in Iraq.
They didn't become killers because we went to Afghanistan.
They didn't become killers because we were in Saudi Arabia.
They were killers long before Bush ever entered the picture.
I grow weary of hearing that we are motivatiing them to kill us.
We were nowhere in the Middle East on 9/11, yet they still attacked. And they have been attacking us with regularity since the late 60s.

...cept drink margaritas on Fridays
>
Sounds good to me !


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 18:59:54 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>I consider him to be very intelligent and not misguided, these are just opinions we have here, not facts.

I know Bushisms don't necessarily make Bush a dumb guy, but I would like a president who is able to articulately express ideas backed with information without resorting to 'America is free' every few moments. I know that's an exaggeration, but today on CNN I watched Bill Clinton speaking about tsunami relief. He was able to concisely explain what the current problems were holding up the spending of relief funds and the positive things that have been going on with firsthand knowledge and examples, and his ability to articulate and his clear knowledge of the topic was something I've rarely seen from a politician in the past four years.

Do I think Bush is dumb? No, but compared to who he originally ran against there was a clear division. Not including utter lies about the supposed Love Story incident and whether or not he was at that one accident site, a lot satire I heard about Al Gore, such as from the classic Tsound of Tsongas by the Capitol Steps, was that he was boring. Al Gore lost... well didn't win by more than he did at least partly because Bush has an accent (which hides his youth living in NE) and seems like a friendly guy, while Gore was busy giving detailed explanations of economic situations. (Compare that to 'by far the vast majority...'). Bush ain't dumb, but he's sure as hell not as smart as Clinton or Gore, and I'd rather have a very intelligent president who doesn't mispronounce Abu Ghraib in front of ambassadors in several different ways on several different occasions than Bush.


 
FN Posted: Thu Jul 14 20:34:00 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Terrorist don't become killers because we are in Iraq.

Normal people become terrorists.

If somebody invades America tomorrow, all the gun-toting lunatics, if they'd have the balls for it, would be terrorists too to the other guy.

Not all of them started because of the US going to war with afghanistan and iraq, ofcourse, but are you saying that at this point in time the war on terror hasn't created more terrorists or at least potential ones?

>I grow weary of hearing that we are motivatiing them to kill us.

By invading their countries, you're giving them more excuses for doing it, yeah.

>We were nowhere in the Middle East on 9/11, yet they still attacked.

?

They just woke up and decided to kill some americans probably.


 
FN Posted: Thu Jul 14 20:36:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Anybody remember Bush making fun of an American journalist basicly saying he was being a pompous ass by showing off for posing Chirac a question in French?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 14 22:07:48 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>filthy mcnasty said:
>>I consider him to be very intelligent and not misguided, these are just opinions we have here, not facts.
>
>>Do I think Bush is dumb? No, but compared to who he originally ran against there was a clear division. Not including utter lies about the supposed Love Story incident and whether or not he was at that one accident site, a lot satire I heard about Al Gore, such as from the classic Tsound of Tsongas by the Capitol Steps, was that he was boring. Al Gore lost... well didn't win by more than he did at least partly because Bush has an accent (which hides his youth living in NE) and seems like a friendly guy, while Gore was busy giving detailed explanations of economic situations.
>
Another way of saying Bush is more likeable.

(Compare that to 'by far the vast majority...'). Bush ain't dumb, but he's sure as hell not as smart as Clinton or Gore, and I'd rather have a very intelligent president who doesn't mispronounce Abu Ghraib in front of ambassadors in several different ways on several different occasions than Bush.
>
Bush is every bit as intelligent as Clinton or Gore, probably more so than Gore actually.
You see, he has managed to win the White House twice now when he was supposed to lose both times, largely because he was underestimated by his opponents. They keep talking about how stupid he is, yet he never seems to lose an election.
you talk about intelligence, tell me how you rate it. Is it by education ?
Or street smarts. Just how important is it and how much is enough ?
I would say Jimmy Carter is every bit as intelligent as any president we ever had. I would also say he was probably the worst president of the 20th century.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 22:19:42 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Another way of saying Bush is more likeable.

Unless you ask by far the vast majority of the world, which does matter despite what Americans with no world maps in their house think.

>You see, he has managed to win the White House twice now when he was supposed to lose both times, largely because he was underestimated by his opponents. They keep talking about how stupid he is, yet he never seems to lose an election.

Of course when we see today that the RNC Chairman can use a piece of evidence that, in context, proves the exact opposite of what he claims it proves, and make everyone in the media believe him, it's not at all suprising to me Bush could win one election.


Even if we ignore the fact that Gore really won the electoral college, Bush did not win the popular vote. I know the electoral college is the system we use, but he didn't sit down and say 'I need to campaign this much here and this much here to have a better chance mathematically because of electoral votes.' If that thinking happened it was Rove and his staff. And without 9/11 artificially raising his approval rating he wouldn't have gotten elected again. Getting elected twice does not prove him more intelligent than Gore.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jul 14 22:23:49 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:

>If he were a democrat that would be called intelligent enough to pick an excellent cabinet.

I just can't stretch my imagination that much. Bush isn't smart enough to be a democrat so it's a moot point.


>I consider him to be very intelligent and not misguided, these are just opinions we have here, not facts.

Whether I like Bush or not is an opinion. What's happened in the five years he's been in office is fact.


>Yes, I believe they are blind. There is nothing this man can say or do that will ever get a nod of approval from you.

He could start by kicking Rove's pasty white ass. Then appoint a moderate supreme court justice. That would get my nod of approval.


>You see, that's a fallacy. There is no evidence that he is creating terrorist by fight this war. Terrorist don't become killers because we are in Iraq.

Yet another example of you putting words in my mouth. I never once said that terrorists didn't exist before Bush. I said that because of his policies there are more terrorists. Yeah, that's my opinion, but you'd have a very difficult time coming up with any sound data that says the number of terrorists has decreased since he took office. Muslim animosity towards Americans has tripled because of his policies. Check the polls on that one.

Next time you run into Bush give him this message from me:

The war against terrorism will not be won through military aggression. This isn't ground troops going to battle on a field anymore. You can kill 100 terrorists and there will be 200 to replace them the next week. The only way it can ultimately succeed is through diplomacy with Muslim leaders. There is a lunatic fringe that won't listen to reason, but the majority of the muslim world wants peace. They want to worry about getting their kids to school, about succeeding in their work, about providing food for their table, and not worrying about getting shot if they go for a walk in the evening. If the Middle East doesn't want us having a strong military presence there then we should get the hell out. I mean, we're not there for the oil, right? We can not police the world anymore. It's impossible. We need to keep a strong diplomatic presence in conflicts, and help with aid whenever feasible. Then, if our soil is attacked we will have true justification for going after the perpitrators of the crime, with alliances and support from other countries (Afghanistan for example).


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 22:29:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Whether I like Bush or not is an opinion. What's happened in the five years he's been in office is fact.

Just to be technical, whether or not you like Bush is a fact. It's whether Bush should be liked that is an opinion.

>Yet another example of you putting words in my mouth. I never once said that terrorists didn't exist before Bush. I said that because of his policies there are more terrorists. Yeah, that's my opinion, but you'd have a very difficult time coming up with any sound data that says the number of terrorists has decreased since he took office.

I don't think the problem is are there more terrorists; the terrorists organizations in existence now have much more power because their messages of propaganda seem pretty real when we do exactly as bin Laden said and occupy an oil-rich Middle Eastern nation. Their terrorists activities have also gained more focus in the news, which increases the groups power and the effectiveness of their terror.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jul 14 22:33:01 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:

>You see, he has managed to win the White House twice now when he was supposed to lose both times, largely because he was underestimated by his opponents. They keep talking about how stupid he is, yet he never seems to lose an election.

Well Holy Fuck! Bush's intelligence, or lack of, has zippo to do with him winning these elections. What it says is that half the American population are idiots. Stupid people can win elections, hif. Very intelligent people can lose elections. Once TV and the media became big players in the election races intelligence on the issues facing America has had little to do with who wins an election.

Shaking my head


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 14 22:49:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The election process is becoming more and more a charade anyway. Besides being controlled by the media, the election in Florida, if you ignore the thousands and thousands of discounted votes for Gore, was a statistical deadheat. With the vote differential that eventually decided the election, it meant absolutely nothing to say Bush held the majority of the country. If you then factor in the advantage the Republicans have because of small red states that have the automatic two electoral votes from the House, the process doesn't mean much.

Unrelated, but I watched a comedian recently describe trickle-down economics as the economic system where the fat cats tell you they're going to piss on you, and you enjoy it nonetheless. That's what 'trickle-down' sounds like to me.


 
kurohyou Posted: Fri Jul 15 01:14:24 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm not going to lie, I've read very little of this thread and I know very little about what is going on with this whole Rove whatever situation. At first glance it looked like an invitation only thread between hif, Addi and Zacq... :)

However, I wanted to tell Addi that I'm sorry about your friend, and I hope you are hanging in there. It never easy, even if you do see it coming. My nephew's grandmother is suffering from an illness (I'll be damned if I can remember which one right now) which has been slowly attacking her over the course of several years. She went to th e hospital for it a few weeks ago and they discovered she has Liver Cancer. The problem they have come up against is that she does not have the strength to survive the treatment, so either the cancer, the orginal illness, or the treatment will ultimatly take her life. Her husband, who is one of the most positive people I've met, said its not a matter of if, but when now. Her health has deteriorated to the point where she will never be the person we knew again.

Even when you see it coming its not easy to deal with. I'm sorry.

As for your company, that is rough. I'm sure, as hif said, you'll be okay, perhaps this is a chance to try something new, if your heart so desires. I'm sure there is a silver lining, or a reason for it, its just a matter of letting it marinate for a little while, and who knows. October is a ways off yet...actually I guess its closer than I thought.

Seems to be a lot of transition going about. My life is going through a lot of transistions, and upheaval, maybe there is something in the air, who knows.

Sorry for the rant, it got away from me. I will keep you and your family and the family of your friend in my thoughts...hang in there.

For what it's worth...


 
kurohyou Posted: Fri Jul 15 01:21:12 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>If somebody invades America tomorrow, all the gun-toting lunatics, if they'd have the balls for it, would be terrorists too to the other guy.

It would seem that the only difference between at terrorist and a patriot would be what side of the line you are standing on. Its all a matter of your point of view.

Americans, were terrorists to the british back in the 1700s when we were fighting for our independence. We praised the actions of those men. The story of the Boston Tea Party was told with enthusiam when I was in school. I doubt our "antics" were met with the same excitement in Britain.

Its all a matter of your point of view...and believe it or not, every once in a while...I'd say 90% of the time, the other guy has a valid point which he is fighting for. In his eyes at the very least.

For what it's worth...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jul 15 06:52:32 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:
>Christophe said:
>>If somebody invades America tomorrow, all the gun-toting lunatics, if they'd have the balls for it, would be terrorists too to the other guy.
>
>It would seem that the only difference between at terrorist and a patriot would be what side of the line you are standing on. Its all a matter of your point of view.
>
>Americans, were terrorists to the british back in the 1700s when we were fighting for our independence. We praised the actions of those men. The story of the Boston Tea Party was told with enthusiam when I was in school. I doubt our "antics" were met with the same excitement in Britain.
>
>Its all a matter of your point of view...and believe it or not, every once in a while...I'd say 90% of the time, the other guy has a valid point which he is fighting for. In his eyes at the very least.
>
>For what it's worth...
>
Kurohyou, I salute your wisdom most of the time but you don't know the difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary.
It doesn't matter what side you are on, when you indiscriminately kill civilians, women, and children you are a terrorist.
The American revolutionaries in the late 1700's did not do this. There targets were military ones, they wore uniforms and openly carried weapons. They did not behead their prisoners either.


 
addi Posted: Fri Jul 15 06:56:12 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:
> At first glance it looked like an invitation only thread between hif, Addi and Zacq... :)

lol
No, it wasn't an exclusive thread. It's just that hif, zacq and myself are the only ones dumb enough to think our written tyrades here are going to make a difference : )

>However, I wanted to tell Addi that I'm sorry about your friend, and I hope you are hanging in there.

I am. Life goes on, just as it will after I kick the bucket. Thanks



>As for your company, that is rough. I'm sure, as hif said, you'll be okay, perhaps this is a chance to try something new, if your heart so desires.

As God is my witness, someday when I grow up I want to be a cartoonist, or the executive secretary to the leader of the resistance


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jul 15 07:04:32 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
> The only way it can ultimately succeed is through diplomacy with Muslim leaders. There is a lunatic fringe that won't listen to reason, but the majority of the muslim world wants peace. They want to worry about getting their kids to school, about succeeding in their work, about providing food for their table, and not worrying about getting shot if they go for a walk in the evening.
>
And what would our diplomats talk about, say with the new guy in Iran ? Too many Muslim leaders support acts of terror against the west. What good did diplomacy do for the Clinton administration ? Or Bush 1 ? The folks in the middle east are not gonna get rid of the fanatics on their own, they've already proven that, so what are you gonna do ?
I would argue that we have saved more lives than we have lost in Iraq.
We have lost I think 1700 troops in two years ? Saddam killed over 10,000 a year.
As far as muslim animosity and the polls, you gotta be kidding ! You must be aware of the press over there, and most of it is government controlled.


 
addi Posted: Fri Jul 15 07:08:23 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:


>Kurohyou, I salute your wisdom most of the time but you don't know the difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary.

want to comment, but, alas, it's Friday and my ban on politic posts is in effect (god gets pissed at me when I break this covenant).
You're free to rag on my liberal arrogance, hif, without concern for my witty, insightful, and highly opinonated responses.

: )


 
Posted: Fri Jul 15 13:23:20 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:

>Addie, with the exception of you and Crim, I don't think there are any liberals in GT. A lot of far left wingers but none I would call a liberal.
>As far as respect for my political views, that's out the window and I don't really care.
>I know what's coming as soon as I post anything political. Usually that's why I post them. To get the shit stirred up.
>I'm most definitely a conservative, but not as far right as most of you believe.
>Truth be told, there are not that many GT'ers left who's respect would mean anything to me these days.
>I don't mean this as a slam to those who post here, but merely a statement that things have changed a lot during my tenure here.
>That doesn't mean I don't like some people, just means I don't care whether they respect my politics or not.
>I know what I believe in and I respect what you believe in, but if you think I'm stupid because I'm conservative, then you reveal your own ignorance.

I always enjoy talking politics with you guys, all included. If you want to know the truth, I probably spend more time reading conservative blogs and sites than I do on liberal or leftist ones, if only because it gives me reason to question myself and my beliefs on a daily basis, which is always a good excercise.

But I really hope my being liberal doesn't piss anybody off too much :)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jul 15 13:36:11 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>filthy mcnasty said:
>
>>Addie, with the exception of you and Crim, I don't think there are any liberals in GT. A lot of far left wingers but none I would call a liberal.
>>As far as respect for my political views, that's out the window and I don't really care.
>>I know what's coming as soon as I post anything political. Usually that's why I post them. To get the shit stirred up.
>>I'm most definitely a conservative, but not as far right as most of you believe.
>>Truth be told, there are not that many GT'ers left who's respect would mean anything to me these days.
>>I don't mean this as a slam to those who post here, but merely a statement that things have changed a lot during my tenure here.
>>That doesn't mean I don't like some people, just means I don't care whether they respect my politics or not.
>>I know what I believe in and I respect what you believe in, but if you think I'm stupid because I'm conservative, then you reveal your own ignorance.
>
>I always enjoy talking politics with you guys, all included. If you want to know the truth, I probably spend more time reading conservative blogs and sites than I do on liberal or leftist ones, if only because it gives me reason to question myself and my beliefs on a daily basis, which is always a good excercise.
>
>But I really hope my being liberal doesn't piss anybody off too much :)
>
Nothing wrong with being a liberal, it's the left wingers that piss me off.
The truth is no longer the truth, it's become a matter of opinion.


 
Zacq Posted: Fri Jul 15 13:40:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>I would argue that we have saved more lives than we have lost in Iraq.
>We have lost I think 1700 troops in two years ? Saddam killed over 10,000 a year.

Unless I'm reading that wrong you just forgot about thousands and thousands of Iraqis that died because of the war.

I'm not saying we may have saved lives overall, but you could give them a mention.

And I hate left-wingers to. Ann Coulter tells me they hate America.


 
Zacq Posted: Fri Jul 15 13:41:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Nothing wrong with being a liberal, it's the left wingers that piss me off.

Just to define our terms, what's the difference, to you, between Democrats, liberals, and left-wingers? Just curious where you lay the boundaries.


 
Silentmind Posted: Sun Jul 17 03:46:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  >>The folks in the middle east are not gonna get rid of the fanatics on their own, they've already proven that, so what are you gonna do ?


The /reason/ they have fanatics is due to western involvement in the area. We've done so many things to piss them off. No wonder there are fanatics.


 
addi Posted: Sun Jul 17 10:15:01 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:

>The /reason/ they have fanatics is due to western involvement in the area. We've done so many things to piss them off. No wonder there are fanatics.

that's a valid point, silent. Actually, western (Christian) civilizations have a long and ugly history of interactions with the muslim populations of the europe, the middle east, and north africa.
When the Arab empires expanded in the early middle ages and moved northward out of africa they had a policy of tolerance for other religious beliefs in the areas they settled in. The crusades changed all that, and the Spanish Inquisition under Ferdinand and Elizabeth were brutal on the muslims in spain. The deep mistrust of anything "christian" started way back then.
It's not a justification for the actions of the terrorists today, but merely a statement that we are not innocent in our past interactions with them, starting all the way back to the 11th century.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jul 17 10:36:46 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>It's not a justification for the actions of the terrorists today, but merely a statement that we are not innocent in our past interactions with them, starting all the way back to the 11th century.
>
No one on this planet is innocent.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jul 17 10:45:10 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>The /reason/ they have fanatics is due to western involvement in the area. We've done so many things to piss them off. No wonder there are fanatics.
>
Yeah sure, you round up a few of those fanatics and ask them about their politics. They won't talk about western political policies, they will only talk about hatred and a desire to kill westerners.
If it were truly about all the things we have done to piss them off, why don't they strike at government and military targets instead of restaurants and buses and other public use venues ?

The heart of their hatred can be traced to the Israeli/Palestine conflict and how the arabs have shamefully treated their own people and their hatred of all things Jewish.
There is no way to justify what the terrorists have done and are doing.
When someone pisses you off, you don't fucking blow up his neighbors.


 
FN Posted: Sun Jul 17 14:23:20 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>When someone pisses you off, you don't fucking blow up his neighbors.

Said the kettle to the pot.


 
Silentmind Posted: Sun Jul 17 18:13:35 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>If it were truly about all the things we have done to piss them off, why don't they strike at government and military targets instead of restaurants and buses and other public use venues ?
>
pisses you off, you don't fucking blow up his neighbors.


Its used to incite terror. Oh damn, another politician died. Meh. Oh shit, my mom/sister/father/brother/grandma died, now I'm scared. They target the civilian populous that is seen as supporting the westerners. Scare away the population from the invaders, and well, then the invaders are screwed. And yes, you blow up his neighbors, thats how terrorism works. And yes, hif, they do talk about western policies. If America wasn't in Iraq now, there wouldn't be the huge instability in the region that there is now. It was there before, now its just gotten worse.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jul 17 22:00:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>
>>If it were truly about all the things we have done to piss them off, why don't they strike at government and military targets instead of restaurants and buses and other public use venues ?
>>
>pisses you off, you don't fucking blow up his neighbors.
>
>
>Its used to incite terror. Oh damn, another politician died. Meh. Oh shit, my mom/sister/father/brother/grandma died, now I'm scared. They target the civilian populous that is seen as supporting the westerners. Scare away the population from the invaders, and well, then the invaders are screwed. And yes, you blow up his neighbors, thats how terrorism works. And yes, hif, they do talk about western policies. If America wasn't in Iraq now, there wouldn't be the huge instability in the region that there is now. It was there before, now its just gotten worse.
>
No you don't blow up his fucking neighbors because it's not effective.
Using your rationale, all that will do is incite more people to take revenge on yourself for your mindless acts of terror.
And no it has not gotten worse.
Ask the average citizen in Iraq if he or she thinks it's gotten worse.
Let me ask, are you actually justifying what the terrorists are doing ?


 
Silentmind Posted: Mon Jul 18 01:27:58 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Silentmind said:
>>
>>>If it were truly about all the things we have done to piss them off, why don't they strike at government and military targets instead of restaurants and buses and other public use venues ?
>>>
>>pisses you off, you don't fucking blow up his neighbors.
>>
>>
>>Its used to incite terror. Oh damn, another politician died. Meh. Oh shit, my mom/sister/father/brother/grandma died, now I'm scared. They target the civilian populous that is seen as supporting the westerners. Scare away the population from the invaders, and well, then the invaders are screwed. And yes, you blow up his neighbors, thats how terrorism works. And yes, hif, they do talk about western policies. If America wasn't in Iraq now, there wouldn't be the huge instability in the region that there is now. It was there before, now its just gotten worse.
>>
>No you don't blow up his fucking neighbors because it's not effective.
>Using your rationale, all that will do is incite more people to take revenge on yourself for your mindless acts of terror.
>And no it has not gotten worse.
>Ask the average citizen in Iraq if he or she thinks it's gotten worse.
>Let me ask, are you actually justifying what the terrorists are doing ?

Yes, I am. I mean really, I have the stance that America has its nose where it shouldn't. I'm stating that the reason they exist {as of the current times} is due to western involvment in the area. And your comment about the hatred of Isreal. Well, Isreal wouldn't exist had the western world accepted the displaced people. But, alas, the west had the same fear of jews that the middle east had.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jul 18 06:52:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>>>Let me ask, are you actually justifying what the terrorists are doing ?
>
>Yes, I am.
>
You're an ass and I see no reason to continue the debate.



 
addi Posted: Mon Jul 18 06:59:55 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Where there's smoke...

WASHINGTON - The White House is maintaining silence over the leak of a CIA officer's identity despite a journalist's disclosure that Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide (Scooter Libby)was a source for a story about the intelligence agent.

If Libby was in on it so was Cheney.
Also found it disturbingly funny reading Rove's last comment to Cooper on the phone:
"I've already said too much"

They are all lying scumbags


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jul 18 10:04:33 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  July 18, 2005, 8:01 a.m.
Did the CIA “Out” Valerie Plame?
What the mainstream media tells the court ... but won’t tell you.



With each passing day, the manufactured "scandal" over the publication of Valerie Plame's relationship with the CIA establishes new depths of mainstream-media hypocrisy. A highly capable special prosecutor is probing the underlying facts, and it is appropriate to withhold legal judgments until he completes the investigation over which speculation runs so rampant. But it is not too early to assess the performance of the press. It's been appalling.

Is that hyperbole? You be the judge. Have you heard that the CIA is actually the source responsible for exposing Plame's covert status? Not Karl Rove, not Bob Novak, not the sinister administration cabal du jour of Fourth Estate fantasy, but the CIA itself? Had you heard that Plame's cover has actually been blown for a decade — i.e., since about seven years before Novak ever wrote a syllable about her? Had you heard not only that no crime was committed in the communication of information between Bush administration officials and Novak, but that no crime could have been committed because the governing law gives a person a complete defense if an agent's status has already been compromised by the government?

No, you say, you hadn't heard any of that. You heard that this was the crime of the century. A sort of Robert-Hanssen-meets-Watergate in which Rove is already cooked and we're all just waiting for the other shoe — or shoes — to drop on the den of corruption we know as the Bush administration. That, after all, is the inescapable impression from all the media coverage. So who is saying different?

The organized media, that's who. How come you haven't heard? Because they've decided not to tell you. Because they say one thing — one dark, transparently partisan thing — when they're talking to you in their news coverage, but they say something completely different when they think you're not listening.

You see, if you really want to know what the media think of the Plame case — if you want to discover what a comparative trifle they actually believe it to be — you need to close the paper and turn off the TV. You need, instead, to have a peek at what they write when they're talking to a court. It's a mind-bendingly different tale.


SPUN FROM THE START
My colleague Cliff May has already demonstrated the bankruptcy of the narrative the media relentlessly spouts for Bush-bashing public consumption: to wit, that Valerie Wilson, nee Plame, was identified as a covert CIA agent by the columnist Robert Novak, to whom she was compromised by an administration official. In fact, it appears Plame was first outed to the general public as a result of a consciously loaded and slyly hypothetical piece by the journalist David Corn. Corn's source appears to have been none other than Plame's own husband, former ambassador and current Democratic-party operative Joseph Wilson — that same pillar of national security rectitude whose notion of discretion, upon being dispatched by the CIA for a sensitive mission to Niger, was to write a highly public op-ed about his trip in the New York Times. This isn't news to the media; they have simply chosen not to report it.

The hypocrisy, though, only starts there. It turns out that the media believe Plame was outed long before either Novak or Corn took pen to paper. And not by an ambiguous confirmation from Rove or a nod-and-a-wink from Ambassador Hubby. No, the media think Plame was previously compromised by a disclosure from the intelligence community itself — although it may be questionable whether there was anything of her covert status left to salvage at that point, for reasons that will become clear momentarily.

This CIA disclosure, moreover, is said to have been made not to Americans at large but to Fidel Castro's anti-American regime in Cuba, whose palpable incentive would have been to "compromise[] every operation, every relationship, every network with which [Plame] had been associated in her entire career" — to borrow from the diatribe in which Wilson risibly compared his wife's straits to the national security catastrophes wrought by Aldrich Ames and Kim Philby.


THE MEDIA GOES TO COURT ... AND SINGS A DIFFERENT TUNE
Just four months ago, 36 news organizations confederated to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. At the time, Bush-bashing was (no doubt reluctantly) confined to an unusual backseat. The press had no choice — it was time to close ranks around two of its own, namely, the Times's Judith Miller and Time's Matthew Cooper, who were threatened with jail for defying grand jury subpoenas from the special prosecutor.

The media's brief, fairly short and extremely illuminating, is available here. The Times, which is currently spearheading the campaign against Rove and the Bush administration, encouraged its submission. It was joined by a "who's who" of the current Plame stokers, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters America, the Washington Post, the Tribune Company (which publishes the Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun, among other papers), and the White House Correspondents (the organization which represents the White House press corps in its dealings with the executive branch).

The thrust of the brief was that reporters should not be held in contempt or forced to reveal their sources in the Plame investigation. Why? Because, the media organizations confidently asserted, no crime had been committed. Now, that is stunning enough given the baleful shroud the press has consciously cast over this story. Even more remarkable, though, were the key details these self-styled guardians of the public's right to know stressed as being of the utmost importance for the court to grasp — details those same guardians have assiduously suppressed from the coverage actually presented to the public.

Though you would not know it from watching the news, you learn from reading the news agencies' brief that the 1982 law prohibiting disclosure of undercover agents' identities explicitly sets forth a complete defense to this crime. It is contained in Section 422 (of Title 50, U.S. Code), and it provides that an accused leaker is in the clear if, sometime before the leak, "the United States ha[s] publicly acknowledged or revealed" the covert agent's "intelligence relationship to the United States[.]"

As it happens, the media organizations informed the court that long before the Novak revelation (which, as noted above, did not disclose Plame's classified relationship with the CIA), Plame's cover was blown not once but twice. The media based this contention on reporting by the indefatigable Bill Gertz — an old-school, "let's find out what really happened" kind of journalist. Gertz's relevant article, published a year ago in the Washington Times, can be found here.


THE MEDIA TELLS THE COURT: PLAME'S COVER WAS BLOWN IN THE MID-1990s
As the media alleged to the judges (in Footnote 7, page 8, of their brief), Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a spy in Moscow. Of course, the press and its attorneys were smart enough not to argue that such a disclosure would trigger the defense prescribed in Section 422 because it was evidently made by a foreign-intelligence operative, not by a U.S. agency as the statute literally requires.

But neither did they mention the incident idly. For if, as he has famously suggested, President Bush has peered into the soul of Vladimir Putin, what he has no doubt seen is the thriving spirit of the KGB, of which the Russian president was a hardcore agent. The Kremlin still spies on the United States. It remains in the business of compromising U.S. intelligence operations.

Thus, the media's purpose in highlighting this incident is blatant: If Plame was outed to the former Soviet Union a decade ago, there can have been little, if anything, left of actual intelligence value in her "every operation, every relationship, every network" by the time anyone spoke with Novak (or, of course, Corn).


THE CIA OUTS PLAME TO FIDEL CASTRO
Of greater moment to the criminal investigation is the second disclosure urged by the media organizations on the court. They don't place a precise date on this one, but inform the judges that it was "more recent" than the Russian outing but "prior to Novak's publication."

And it is priceless. The press informs the judges that the CIA itself "inadvertently" compromised Plame by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents that the Agency routed to the Swiss embassy in Havana. In the Washington Times article — you remember, the one the press hypes when it reports to the federal court but not when it reports to consumers of its news coverage — Gertz elaborates that "[t]he documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them."

Thus, the same media now stampeding on Rove has told a federal court that, to the contrary, they believe the CIA itself blew Plame's cover before Rove or anyone else in the Bush administration ever spoke to Novak about her. Of course, they don't contend the CIA did it on purpose or with malice. But neither did Rove — who, unlike the CIA, appears neither to have known about nor disclosed Plame's classified status. Yet, although the Times and its cohort have a bull's eye on Rove's back, they are breathtakingly silent about an apparent CIA embarrassment — one that seems to be just the type of juicy story they routinely covet.


A COMPLETE DEFENSE?
The defense in Section 422 requires that the revelation by the United States have been done "publicly." At least one U.S. official who spoke to Gertz speculated that because the Havana snafu was not "publicized" — i.e., because the classified information about Plame was mistakenly communicated to Cuba rather than broadcast to the general public — it would not available as a defense to whomever spoke with Novak. But that seems clearly wrong.

First, the theory under which the media have gleefully pursued Rove, among other Bush officials, holds that if a disclosure offense was committed here it was complete at the moment the leak was made to Novak. Whether Novak then proceeded to report the leak to the general public is beside the point — the violation supposedly lies in identifying Plame to Novak. (Indeed, it has frequently been observed that Judy Miller of the Times is in contempt for protecting one or more sources even though she never wrote an article about Plame.)

Perhaps more significantly, the whole point of discouraging public disclosure of covert agents is to prevent America's enemies from degrading our national security. It is not, after all, the public we are worried about. Rather, it is the likes of Fidel Castro and his regime who pose a threat to Valerie Plame and her network of U.S. intelligence relationships. The government must still be said to have "publicized" the classified relationship — i.e., to have blown the cover of an intelligence agent — if it leaves out the middleman by communicating directly with an enemy government rather than indirectly through a media outlet.


LINGERING QUESTIONS
All this raises several readily apparent questions. We know that at the time of the Novak and Corn articles, Plame was not serving as an intelligence agent outside the United States. Instead, she had for years been working, for all to see, at CIA headquarters in Langley. Did her assignment to headquarters have anything to do with her effectiveness as a covert agent having already been nullified by disclosure to the Russians and the Cubans — and to whomever else the Russians and Cubans could be expected to tell if they thought it harmful to American interests or advantageous to their own?

If Plame's cover was blown, as Gertz reports, how much did Plame know about that? It's likely that she would have been fully apprised — after all, as we have been told repeatedly in recent weeks, the personal security of a covert agent and her family can be a major concern when secrecy is pierced. Assuming she knew, did her husband, Wilson, also know? At the time he was ludicrously comparing the Novak article to the Ames and Philby debacles, did he actually have reason to believe his wife had been compromised years earlier?

And could the possibility that Plame's cover has long been blown explain why the CIA was unconcerned about assigning a one-time covert agent to a job that had her walking in and out of CIA headquarters every day? Could it explain why the Wilsons were sufficiently indiscrete to pose in Vanity Fair, and, indeed, to permit Joseph Wilson to pen a highly public op-ed regarding a sensitive mission to which his wife — the covert agent — energetically advocated his assignment? Did they fail to take commonsense precautions because they knew there really was nothing left to protect?

We'd probably know the answers to these and other questions by now if the media had given a tenth of the effort spent manufacturing a scandal to reporting professionally on the underlying facts. And if they deigned to share with their readers and viewers all the news that's fit to print ... in a brief to a federal court.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.



 
addi Posted: Mon Jul 18 10:32:48 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  My goodness that's a lot of copying and pasteing from your frequented web sites.

Something tells me they're very nervous.
Something also tells me that this will temporarily die down while Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court goes through the media ringer...but when the investigative commission's report comes out with their findings(August or Sept?) something tells me there will be a lot of 'splainin' to do from the spin masters at the white house.
We shall see.


 
Zacq Posted: Mon Jul 18 10:51:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:

>Is that hyperbole? You be the judge. Have you heard that the CIA is actually the source responsible for exposing Plame's covert status? Not Karl Rove, not Bob Novak, not the sinister administration cabal du jour of Fourth Estate fantasy, but the CIA itself?

Yep.

>Had you heard that Plame's cover has actually been blown for a decade — i.e., since about seven years before Novak ever wrote a syllable about her?

A lot as a matter of fact, the whole Russian outing thing.

>Had you heard not only that no crime was committed in the communication of information between Bush administration officials and Novak, but that no crime could have been committed because the governing law gives a person a complete defense if an agent's status has already been compromised by the government?

That clearly follows from the last question.
>
>No, you say, you hadn't heard any of that.

Yes, I have heard that.

Have I heard many media twisting facts by say, claiming someone said something and quoting a CNN transcript without the lines before and after that prove the exact opposite? More times than I can count.


 
Silentmind Posted: Tue Jul 19 03:30:41 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Silentmind said:
>>>>Let me ask, are you actually justifying what the terrorists are doing ?
>>
>>Yes, I am.
>>
>You're an ass and I see no reason to continue the debate.
>


Sarcasm, my dear friend, sarcasm. I have the stance that the US has its nose where it shouldn't. Not that what the terrorists are doing is right. But, their rational is understandable given their situation. The US, not so much.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 19 07:10:13 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>filthy mcnasty said:
>>Silentmind said:
>>>>>Let me ask, are you actually justifying what the terrorists are doing ?
>>>
>>>Yes, I am.
>>>
>>You're an ass and I see no reason to continue the debate.
>>
>
>
>Sarcasm, my dear friend, sarcasm. I have the stance that the US has its nose where it shouldn't. Not that what the terrorists are doing is right. But, their rational is understandable given their situation. The US, not so much.
>
Sarcasm noted.
I disagree with you totally. their rationale is not understandable in any sense. Nothing, nothing can ever justify their actions in deliberately targeting innocents. As for the US, why should we not be involved in supporting Israel, the only democracy in the region.


 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 19 07:46:19 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Just another update friends...because I know ya'll are waiting with breathless anticipation

Bush was forced to respond to this nasty Wilson matter. His convictions on getting to the bottom of it have changed slightly:

"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." --George W. Bush, September 30, 2003.

And now, in light of the new evidence coming out:

"I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts and if someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration." -- George W. Bush, July 18, 2005

Uh oh...can't function without my Brain...better backpeddle my way out of this one.
The sad implication here is that this administration will turn a blind eye if a high official leaks sensitive information to the press, as long as "no crime" was committed.

Dubya is living up to his campaign promise of bringing "honor and integrity" back to the White House.

Can't you just feel it?




 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 19 08:16:53 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If any of you confused Gters out there need a fair and balanced overview of this whole matter click on this link

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/headlines/index.jhtml

*click on "More Best Leak Ever" video icon (Rove picture)

You WILL become enlightened, and reach a state of total nerdvanna.




 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 19 08:26:42 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Just another update friends...because I know ya'll are waiting with breathless anticipation
>
>Bush was forced to respond to this nasty Wilson matter. His convictions on getting to the bottom of it have changed slightly:
>
>"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." --George W. Bush, September 30, 2003.
>
> And now, in light of the new evidence coming out:
>
> "I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts and if someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration." -- George W. Bush, July 18, 2005
>
>Uh oh...can't function without my Brain...better backpeddle my way out of this one.
>The sad implication here is that this administration will turn a blind eye if a high official leaks sensitive information to the press, as long as "no crime" was committed.
>
>Dubya is living up to his campaign promise of bringing "honor and integrity" back to the White House.
>
>Can't you just feel it?
>
What if Ms. Plame/Wilson or whatever her name is, wasn't covert ?


 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 19 08:43:12 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:

>What if Ms. Plame/Wilson or whatever her name is, wasn't covert ?

In that case it's perfectly fine to out a female agent...unless it's during that time of the month for her, then it's illegal cuz they're too emotionally unstable then and outing them really pisses them off and they would probably shoot the person who did it.
The question of whether or not Ms. Plame was experiencing her period at the time of the article's publishing is now being investigated.
: (


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 19 09:59:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  how can you "out" someone who isn't "in" ?
Everybody who knew her, knew she worked at the CIA. She held a desk job in plain view of anyone who cared, for the last 6 yrs. She could plainly be seen coming and going to work at CIA headquarters every day. How is that "covert" ?


 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 19 10:25:06 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  : )
I knew this was coming.

Go to any conservative site or blog and, lo and behold, Ms. Plame wasn't really an agent at all. All she ever did was "push files" and get coffee for the important male workers. In fact, one has to question if she ever really worked as an agent in any capacity. Nevermind the fact that the CIA ordered an investigation into the outing of one of their agents. They would do that even for low level female non-covert file pushers.

"The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence. "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said"

Just apply a little common sense to all this, hif. 2 years into the investigation, the Plame prosecutor would have gathered enough facts to make such a determination. We do know she did serve overseas. Surely the CIA knows if she was in undercover covert status or not.

The Bush defenders are grasping at straws




 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 19 11:07:15 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>The Bush defenders are grasping at straws
>
I don't think so. I also think the prosecutor knows what he is doing. He has stated that Rove is not a target of his investigation so what do you think he is he doing ?

And then there is this from a liberal website : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/mike-mccurry/a-little-sympathy-for-sco_4171.html



 
FN Posted: Tue Jul 19 11:43:19 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The only thing I'm going to say about this is the following:




If it was a liberal guy "outing" that woman, it wouldn't just be called "a crime", but the conservatives would be crying treason/traitor and would have his head on a plate if at all possible for endagering the nation's security.

But now, it's a conservative who commits the crime, and suddenly, underneath a paperthin coat of honor and integrity-varnish, it's not even a crime at all, but a random fact that somebody made public, even though the world supposedly already knew about it.



I've said it before, and I'm saying it again, I have nothing against people defending themselves, their actions, or defending the actions of those who they have some kind of affinity with.

However, and here's what causes this whole discussion, and some previous ones and probably following ones too, to stink down and up wind:

If you're going to say something or pull something into a discussion, you can not use double standards and have to apply the same standards to the same type of situation, no matter who's the one comitting the crime, and this is not what is happening here.




If I'd live in America, I'm 60% certain I'd lean to the conservative side of the political spectrum. But from a neutral, 3rd party point of view, hif, and the others here, there is one thing that gets more obvious with every discussion like this:

If a liberal fucks up, liberals point the fingers and tell him to get his act together, and conservatives would like to publicly lynch the man or woman.

If a conservative fucks up, liberals point the fingers and tell him to get his act together, and conservatives point the fingers at the liberals, yelling communist treason terror pigs, claiming it's their fault and they're the ones who are splitting holy america in half.



And that's where the other 40% certainty is going down the drain for me.

Though based on ideology I'd probably get along better with the republican party, I could never support a political group that is so biased and unable to point the finger at itself when it is called for.




You want to be offended by that, fair enough, but that is the way it is, wether you like it or not, hif, and you're being a part of it, and it is also in my opinion what scares a lot of "intelligent" and true freedom-loving americans away from the republican party.



And as a conclusion: I don't care what anybody says about this post, that's the way it is, I don't care what the rest of the world has to say about it, so there.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 19 11:51:31 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>I don't think so. I also think the prosecutor knows what he is doing. He has stated that Rove is not a target of his investigation so what do you think he is he doing ?

In technical terms, no he is not a 'target'. He is a 'subject' of the investigation.


 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 19 11:57:54 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>If it was a liberal guy "outing" that woman, it wouldn't just be called "a crime", but the conservatives would be crying treason/traitor and would have his head on a plate if at all possible for endagering the nation's security.

Wipes a tear from my face. So true. I'm so proud of you!



>If I'd live in America, I'm 60% certain I'd lean to the conservative side of the political spectrum.

I hate you! Traitor!

>If a conservative fucks up, liberals point the fingers and tell him to get his act together, and conservatives point the fingers at the liberals, yelling communist treason terror pigs, claiming it's their fault and they're the ones who are splitting holy america in half.

Wait...I love you again!


>Though based on ideology I'd probably get along better with the republican party,

Pack your bags and get the hell out!

>I could never support a political group that is so biased and unable to point the finger at itself when it is called for.

Perhaps I was a bit hasty (hugs,Chris)Welcome back, son!



*whether in agreement or disagreement, well put Christophe.




 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 19 12:10:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Does anyone find it a wee bit curious that Plame's covert status is accepted for a year or two until about two or three days after a conservative is named? We knew all along the basics of what had happened - Plame's identity had been outed - but no one came forth and said 'she wasn't really covert.'


On a side note which I will be including until hif acknowledges that I said it, the RNC chairman deliberately lied.


 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 19 12:48:33 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Does anyone find it a wee bit curious that Plame's covert status is accepted for a year or two until about two or three days after a conservative is named?

Probably just a coincedence
: )

>On a side note which I will be including until hif acknowledges that I said it, the RNC chairman deliberately lied.

Heck, there's so much lieing and backtracking going on right now it makes my head spin.
Was watching a documentary yesterday on Iraq and watched the lies spew forth from Rice, Wolfiwitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, McClellan, Bush, Rove, and Powell's very own mouths. It was sickening.

And here's what really gets my goat.
All politicians lie, regardless of political affiliation.
Clinton lied about not inhaling pot and about the whole cigar/blow job thingie with Monica.
The righteous republicans had a field day with that.
Bush and company lie/decieve us about the reasons for invading Iraq (among other things), and we have over 1,700 U.S. mothers with one less child now, not to mention the Iraqi losses.

The hypocrisy infuriates me.

"In the eyes of God a lie is a lie"

Bullshit!


*okay, eat you're green M&M's and settle down Addi
sigh


 
Silentmind Posted: Tue Jul 19 12:52:48 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Silentmind said:
>>filthy mcnasty said:
>>>Silentmind said:
>>>>>>Let me ask, are you actually justifying what the terrorists are doing ?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I am.
>>>>
>>>You're an ass and I see no reason to continue the debate.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Sarcasm, my dear friend, sarcasm. I have the stance that the US has its nose where it shouldn't. Not that what the terrorists are doing is right. But, their rational is understandable given their situation. The US, not so much.
>>
>Sarcasm noted.
>I disagree with you totally. their rationale is not understandable in any sense. Nothing, nothing can ever justify their actions in deliberately targeting innocents. As for the US, why should we not be involved in supporting Israel, the only democracy in the region.


They are trying to rid the area of America. They have no standing army. So, what are they left with. Armed insurgency is what they are left with. And the targets of such a policy are Americans, and the civilians that support, or help to futher the Americans goal in the area {which is in no way democracy, thats what they switched it to to save face.}

And why should the US not be supporting Israel? Because by giving the biggest democracy in the area one of the largest armies in the area, it serves to destabilize the situation. The reason why there is an arab/israeli conflict is due to the fact of western meddling. It goes back to the Balfour declaration. Had the western nations allowed the jewish people to enter into their countries, we wouldn't have this problem. If anything, America should try and be a neutral mediator. Kinda removes that bias. I think it would be /amazing/ if America would actually try to use its force for peacekeeping. Not just what they are doing now, but on a large scale. It'd change the world's perspective on the US and it would actually serve to save people, not kill them. However, that'll never happen, because America is too interested in the control of nations through indirect means in areas of {in their minds} importance.


 
Silentmind Posted: Tue Jul 19 12:54:23 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Oh, and seeing how the one statement was sarcasm, perhaps the ass comment could be, say retracted?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 19 13:08:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Christophe said:
>
>>If it was a liberal guy "outing" that woman, it wouldn't just be called "a crime", but the conservatives would be crying treason/traitor and would have his head on a plate if at all possible for endagering the nation's security.
>
>Wipes a tear from my face. So true. I'm so proud of you!
>
hahaha, can anyone say Sandy Berger ?


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 19 13:12:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>hahaha, can anyone say Sandy Berger ?

How many times do I have to tell you to hold on to your food when you're at the beach?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 19 13:14:12 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>Oh, and seeing how the one statement was sarcasm, perhaps the ass comment could be, say retracted?
>
perhaps, we'll see. . .
I'm still not totally convinced that you don't actually support the terrorists.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 19 13:16:30 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>And why should the US not be supporting Israel? Because by giving the biggest democracy in the area one of the largest armies in the area, it serves to destabilize the situation.
>

And had we not given them the means to defend themselves, where do you think Israel would be today ?

Had their neighbors just left them alone, they wouldn't need such a large army now would they ?


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 19 13:24:42 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Had their neighbors just left them alone, they wouldn't need such a large army now would they ?

So if tomorrow the UN declared your living room and kitchen to be owned by Aboriginees, you wouldn't be annoyed?

Great job Zacq, now we have to have a damn argument about the beginning of Israel.


 
Silentmind Posted: Tue Jul 19 13:44:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The Brits fucked up and handed it to the UN. The western nations refused to take in these displaced people, so the western nations on the committee recommended a few ideas. The one selected, and the one we see today, was describe by Lester Pearson as "The lesser of two bad ideas" They only had these two options and that was due to the inflexiblility of the western nations. The arab dissention to the creation of a new nation was ignored by the Americans and Brits.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 19 15:00:39 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>The Brits fucked up and handed it to the UN. The western nations refused to take in these displaced people, so the western nations on the committee recommended a few ideas. The one selected, and the one we see today, was describe by Lester Pearson as "The lesser of two bad ideas" They only had these two options and that was due to the inflexiblility of the western nations. The arab dissention to the creation of a new nation was ignored by the Americans and Brits.
>
Ahem, weren't there two new nations created ?


 
FN Posted: Tue Jul 19 21:49:44 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  What difference does it make? it still comes down to the same thing.

If the Un grants 25 states to fleeing muslims, you're saying you'd think that's acceptable?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jul 20 06:56:19 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>What difference does it make? it still comes down to the same thing.
>
>If the Un grants 25 states to fleeing muslims, you're saying you'd think that's acceptable?
>
Not 25 states, it was only two.
Today ? no, I think the UN can go fuck itself.
In the late 40's when a lot of new borders were being created and old borders being erased, yes.


 
FN Posted: Wed Jul 20 09:44:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Each about half, right?

Which would constitute 20 states.

Would you be willing to give up even 1, your own?


 
FN Posted: Wed Jul 20 09:44:24 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  *25 states


 
Silentmind Posted: Wed Jul 20 14:37:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>In the late 40's when a lot of new borders were being created and old borders being erased, yes.

Give me a few examples.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jul 20 20:40:41 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>
>>In the late 40's when a lot of new borders were being created and old borders being erased, yes.
>
>Give me a few examples.
>
Why don't you give me a few examples and then tell me why Israel has no right to exist.


 
FN Posted: Wed Jul 20 21:22:01 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  That's not the point at all, hif.

I like discussions with you, you know that as well as I do, but not when you're acting like that.


 
Silentmind Posted: Thu Jul 21 01:58:35 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Silentmind said:
>>
>>>In the late 40's when a lot of new borders were being created and old borders being erased, yes.
>>
>>Give me a few examples.
>>
>Why don't you give me a few examples and then tell me why Israel has no right to exist.

I was simply asking which borders you were refering to. Because the Iraeli situation may {is} much different from that of Europe in most respects. So, just trying to find out what you were refering to.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 21 06:57:46 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>That's not the point at all, hif.
>
>I like discussions with you, you know that as well as I do, but not when you're acting like that.
>
That last remark was not directed at you Chris.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 21 07:03:11 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Each about half, right?
>
>Which would constitute 20 states.
>
>Would you be willing to give up even 1, your own?
>
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but Israel is about the size of Rhode Island and The areas controlled by Palestine are about the size of Connecticut.

I've posted the following article before but it was lost in the last purge:

Who Wants to Be a Palestinian Refugee?
By Steven Plaut

In the American War of Independence, many thousands of Tory “Loyalists” fled the newborn country as “refugees." The American War of Independence was in reality a civil war. The local Tories opposed the creation of the newly declared independent state, sought to remain a part of the greater British Empire, allied themselves with the British forces trying to suppress the new state, participated in "terrorist" attacks and tried to destroy the American independence movement from within. The Tory refugees fled the 13 colonies to Canada, the Caribbean, and elsewhere because they wished to escape battle zones, feared reprisals, were expelled or simply did not wish to be part of the United States.

Those Tory refugees were absorbed by the countries to which they fled, mainly Maritime British Canada. They forfeited all the property left behind in the United States. The Patriot leaders opposed any sort of compensation or settlement for them. The most militant opponent of any sort of deal was Benjamin Franklin. They would never be granted any “right of return” to the territories they had left.

Flash forward to the twentieth century. In the late 1940s the world saw tens of millions of refugees created by the political upheavals in various parts of the world. World War II left behind large numbers of refugees and people displaced from the lands of their birth. Among these, the nations of Eastern Europe expelled millions of ethnic Germans from their territories, probably around 12 million in total. These were people who had collaborated with Nazi Germany and identified with it, people who had assisted Hitler in invading their own countries. Ethnic Germans were expelled from the Sudeten area of Czechoslovakia, where they had served as the pawns for Hitler’s opening gambit during World War II. They were also expelled from Hungary, Romania, Poland, Russia and Yugoslavia. (From the last, Moslems and others were expelled as well.) The ethnic Germans were expelled to their Fatherland, which had been the aggressor in the war. The same fate befell the Japanese Diaspora in Asia, especially in Manchuria and Korea.

But the ethnic Germans and Japanese were not the only refugees. Ethnic Hungarians were expelled from Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia to their “Mother Country.” There were millions of refugees created by the partition of the Indian subcontinent, especially in the Punjab. There followed population movements of disenfranchised peoples in South America and in Africa. Jewish survivors of World War II, Poles expelled from the areas of Poland annexed by Russia, Italians from Africa, the list of refugees goes on and on.

And amid this endless list of millions of human tragedies, a mini-tragedy took place in the Middle East. The United Nations proposed partitioning Mandatory Palestine into two new states, one Jewish and one Arab, in a manner that was similar to what was being proposed for the Indian subcontinent. There had never been any independent Palestinian Arab state ever, and no Jewish state since the time of Jesus. Palestine had been a colony of assorted outside invaders and colonialists, the most recent being the British and before them the Turks.

The Jews accepted the proposal. The Arabs, including the leadership of the "Palestinian" Arabs, rejected the proposal. The Arab countries illegally annexed the territories of the proposed Palestinian Arab state and then attacked the newborn Jewish state, in exactly the same manner as Britain and its Hessian allies attacking the newborn United States in 1776. The Israeli Arabs served as a fifth column, joining the invading forces and engaging in terrorist atrocities, just as the Tory Loyalists did in the United States. And like the Tory Loyalists, the Arabs lost.

During the course of the war, some of the Arabs living in the area that became Israel emigrated. The number of those who left has since been converted into a propaganda weapon by the Hate-Israel lobby. Based on demographic evidence, the range of reasonable numbers for the émigrés is between 400,000 and 700,000 people, with the former number much more likely than the latter, and in any case little more than a drop in the sea of refugees in the late 1940s. These people moved or fled to sister Arab countries, just as the Tory refugees moved to British territories. The exact reason for their leaving has long since been purposely obfuscated to allow the “refugee” issue to serve as an anti-Israel bludgeon. Some of the best analyses of this “refugee problem” have been by Prof. Efraim Karsh of the University of London, in Commentary Magazine (Commentary, July-August, 2000, and “The Palestinians and the "right of return" Commentary; May 2001; Vol. 111, Iss. 5; see also this website and “What Occupation?” Commentary; Jul/Aug 2002; Vol. 114, Iss. 1).

Probably the main reason for the outflow of Arab refugees from what became Israel was their understandable desire to get away from the battle zones. In most cases, the Jews went out of their way to dissuade the Arabs from fleeing. The leadership of the local Arabs and of the attacking Arab states repeatedly urged the local Arabs to flee the battle zones so they would not be in the way of the invading Arab juggernaut that would annihilate the Jews and perpetrate a new Holocaust.

The Arab countries and their anti-Jewish "amen chorus" claim that that Israel expelled the 400,000 or so “refugees." Even if it had, it was at least as justified in doing so as were the American patriots in expelling the Tory Loyalists, or the Eastern European countries that expelled ethnic Germans. The Arab states also conveniently “forget” that they attacked Israel in 1948 when there were absolutely no Arab refugees to be rescued, meaning Arab aggression produced the refugee problem and was not a reaction to Israel's creation. Be that as it may, even if there were some partial truth to the Arab accusations against Israel, it is little more that the pot calling the kettle black. Within a short period of Israel’s winning its War of Independence, the Arab and Moslem countries perpetrated one of the great ethnic cleansings of modern human history. They expelled around a million Jews from their territories, most of whom were resettled inside Israel, despite that fact that these Jews had lived in the territories of the Moslem world centuries before the birth of the Prophet Mohammed and a thousand years before the Arab Empire was created.

Thus by the early 1950s, the main refugee problem in the Middle East was the million Jews expelled by the Arabs, while a minor secondary problem was the 400,000 or so Arabs who had fled Israel after its creation. Not only were there far more Jewish refugees than Arab refugees, but the Jews had left behind far greater amounts of property. The Jews in the Moslem world had been largely educated and middle class, whereas most of the Arabs fleeing the newly born Israel had been impoverished serfs living and working on Arab feudal estates.

And that, in brief, is the entire story of the creation of the “Palestinian refugee problem.” It is not the story you will hear on the many anti-Israel media outlets, perhaps the latest being MSNBC. It is also not the story being proliferated by the apologists for the Arab aggressors and Jihadists, who invariably base themselves these days on Israel’s own far-left, pseudo-academic “New Historians,” a bit like basing an analysis of American mendacity on the scribblings of Noam Chomsky.

The Jewish refugee problem was resolved the same way other refugee problems were solved. They were absorbed and integrated into the country in which they obtained refuge, in their “Mother Country,” namely in Israel. In reality, the twin Middle Eastern refugee streams of the late 1940s and early 1950s were very similar to other twin streams of refugees, in which national conflicts were settled de facto via population transfer. This is how the India-Pakistani conflict of 1949 ended and how the Greek-Turkish and Cypriot conflicts reached cooled. It is how the countries of Eastern Europe ended the demographic disruptions from the aftermath of World War II. And it is even how the American War of Independence ended.

But the Arabs refused to absorb and resettle their refugees. Of the countless millions of refugees from the 1940s, the only ones not absorbed and resettled by their “Mother Countries,” by the countries in which they sought refuge, were the “Palestinian refugees.” The Arab world realized that they could be used as pawns and as weapons to continue the Arab jihad of annihilation against Israel. These refugees were kept in “refugee camps” run by the Arab world and financed by the United Nations and the world community (that is, mainly the United States). The camp residents were trained in terrorism and mass murder.

Meanwhile, since the world community was handing out free food and cash to those claiming to be “Palestinian refugees,” hundreds of thousands of other Arabs from the Arab countries of refuge for these people signed up as “refugees” in order to get the handouts. It was as if a new TV show were invented with generous prizes, called “Who Wants to be a Palestinian Refugee?” This pretence is the source of the absurd claims that the 400,000 refugees from 1949 have since morphed into 3.5 million refugees today.

Imagine that the British Empire had taken the Tory Loyalists who left America, set them up in terrorist training camps along the Canadian border, organized them into murderous legions and death squads, armed them with heavy firepower, bankrolled them, and all the while built up its own armies for the day of reckoning when the Americans would be annihilated and thrown into the sea. Imagine that the British Empire underwent nazification, by which its schoolchildren were taught that the greatest act of patriotism was to murder American children and bomb American schools and meeting houses. Imagine that for decades the British kept the Tory Loyalists who had fled the United States locked up in squalid camps for their public relations value.

And then imagine that the British Empire announced that it would never agree to recognize the existence of the United States until the Tory Loyalists had been granted the “Right of Return.” Imagine that the British insisted that until all property, real or imaginary, claimed by those Tory refugees were “returned,” the anti-American jihad would continue.

And if you can imagine such a thing, you have the entire story of the Palestinian “Right of Return.” Of the tens of millions of refugees from the 1940s, the only ones on the planet who are regarded as having an entitlement to the property and lands from which they left in the 1940s are the Palestinians. Certainly the Jewish refugees from the Moslem countries, who were twice the numbers of the Palestinian refugees, have never been granted any such right.

Let us state this even more clearly.: The Arab world and its apologists have demanded that the Palestinians be granted their own state, and insisting that anyone claiming now to be a Palestinian “refugee” - 55 years after the war launched by the Arabs - should be entitled to move to Israel and reclaim property. Obviously the true reason for this demand is to derail Israel demographically and turn it into the Rwanda of the Levant.

Israel has expressed willingness since 1949 to talk about some sort of financial settlement and resolution scheme for Arabs who did indeed become refugees in 1948-9 as part of any comprehensive peace agreement, unlike Benjamin Franklin and the Patriots of 1776. The Arabs have refused to negotiate peace. As a result, there has been no resolution. No such scheme should be unilateral, given the fact that the Jewish refugees from the Moslem world left behind property worth perhaps ten times as much as what was lost by the “Palestinians.”

But a “Right of Reurn”? One that allows anyone pretending to be a Palestinian “refugee” to move to Israel, even after erection of a Palestinian terrorist state? Nothing could be a more absurd idea. That is the recipe for converting Israel into Rwanda.

When the Czechs let the Sudeten Germans return, when Pakistan invites the Hindu Punjabis to return and India invites back the Moslems, when Turkey invites the Greeks to return to Anatolia, when the Greeks invite the Turks back to Athens and Cyprus, when the ethnic Japanese expelled from Korea and China are invited back, and when the United States agrees to allow all descendents of Tory Loyalists to reclaim lands in New England – only then should the world consider whether the Palestinians have any “Right of Return” to Israel.

The “Right of Return” for “Palestinians” is nothing more than an instrument of aggression being bandied about by the genocidal Jihadists and Islamofascists of the Arab world.



 
Mesh Posted: Thu Jul 21 07:14:23 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This thread just gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling on my inside.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jul 21 08:35:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Your posts are too fucking long, hif. Summarize or edit please. My eyes are bad enough as it is.

1. Arabs and Palenstinians have killed Jews
2. Jews occupied Arab land and have killed Arabs to keep it.
3. Both sides are guilty a hundred times over of senseless atrocities that do nothing but contribute to hatred for each other.
4. Any person argueing that it's all Israel's fault is a moron.
5. Any person argueing that it's all the Palestinian's fault is a moron.
6. Untill BOTH sides agree that it's better to compromise and live in an uneasy, but relatively peaceful state, as neighbors the killing will continue.

Can we please get this thread back to Rove's evilness now?

: )




 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jul 21 11:45:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And I think my point was that it makes a lot of sense Arabs were pissed off about an outside force declaring their holy land to be Jewish. If for example, Hefner's mansion was suddenly controlled by, I dunno, some ugly country, you'd all be pissed off.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 30 16:31:57 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>the spin continues...
>
>Karl Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's wife worked at the CIA, Rove responded through his lawyer that he did not give Cooper the name Valerie Plame, but merely referred to "Wilson's wife."
>
>So Rove's lawyer NOW says that Rove informed the reporter that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, but that because he didn't literally say Valerie Wilson it's okay.
>
>Do a google seach on "Joseph Wilson's wife" and count the seconds it takes to discover her name. Info on her was available online even before any of this surfaced. The reporter was already told that she worked with the CIA. Hell, a Fox reporter would be smart enough to put 2+2 together on this one.
>
>Last year Rove soundly denied talking to any reporter about this.
>Now his own lawyer says he did.
>Today we learn that because he didn't literally use her name that he shouldn't be blamed.
>
>Hell, I'm not naive. I know this stuff goes on in politics. It's the double standard hypocrisy that bugs the hell out of me.
>Can you imagine if Clinton's chief of staff had had this much evidence that he/she helped to out a CIA agent? The conservatives would have screamed "Treason!".
>Rove gets away with murder and the media and American people let him.
>
>I need Bryer's Ice cream...sigh
>
I had to dredge this up for you Addi, just so I could say "I told you so" . ..

Now will everybody come back and start posting again ?
I'm getting tired of talking back to the voices in my head.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]