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

Bill O'Reilly Hates S.F.
DanSRose Posted: Mon Nov 14 03:40:42 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/11/MNGFMFMNV41.DTL&hw=O%27Reilly&sn=002&sc=775

Nothing really else needs to be said on this. Nothing except, and you can quote me: "Douche."


 
addi Posted: Mon Nov 14 07:20:41 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "He's irritating," said his wife, Judy Hickey,"

A classic Christophe response : )


Actually, Mr. O'Reilly hates everyone, unless it's a sultry young female associate that he can grope at work, include in his cheesey works of fiction, and masterbate thinking about...while he gazes into a mirror admiring his dashing good looks.




 
FN Posted: Mon Nov 14 07:32:06 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Meh, the guy is just a media whore and I think you shouldn't give him the satisfaction of being annoyed by it.

I'm sure if he could raise his approval rating by sticking a feather duster up his rectum and doing the chicken dance he'd do so. Two times.


Let it be known that I don't take people like him seriously, same goes for anybody who tries and defend his intelligence.

He can say what he wants, ofcourse, but then don't expect anybody to take him seriously on any other thing he might bring up either.


 
addi Posted: Mon Nov 14 07:37:34 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>Let it be known that I don't take people like him seriously, same goes for anybody who tries and defend his intelligence.


Good for you, Christophe, but the sad fact of the matter is that he has a huge following here of devoted listeners, both on TV and radio, that truely believe the "pearls of wisdom" he spews forth every day over the airwaves.


 
DanSRose Posted: Mon Nov 14 08:22:00 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  His "Radio Factor" is even more hate-filled than the FOXNews "Factor", but the cable one is more direct and focused.
He also has a thing for obsessively convering pedophiles, which normally is a good thing. Except for the fact that there's a whole lot of shit going on today (ie: the use of White Phosphorous during the assault on Fallujah, and the US media's ignoring/total ignorance of it until Wednesday when the Italian reporters made a stink of it)


 
Mark Posted: Mon Nov 14 11:42:56 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I like the way he sees democracy... you may vote, but only vote for what we want you to vote or else...


 
libra Posted: Mon Nov 14 13:04:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  that man is not good enough for san francisco...


 
addi Posted: Mon Nov 14 13:50:33 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  xcerpt from Bill O'Reilly's novel, "Those Who Trespass":

"Ashley was now wearing only brief white panties. She had signaled her desire by removing her shirt and skirt, and by leaning back on the couch. She closed her eyes, concentrating on nothing but Shannon's tongue and lips. He gently teased her by licking the areas around her most sensitive erogenous zone. Then he slipped her panties down her legs and, within seconds, his tongue was inside her, moving rapidly."

And I was forced to listen to the audiobook version of this passage with O'Reilly himself reading it.

I got chills and my skin went cold.


 
DanSRose Posted: Mon Nov 14 15:02:16 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I swear on the holiest of holies that I got physically nauseous reading that.
Bad addi! Bad!
*shudders, goes to imitate the shower scene from The Big Chill*


 
addi Posted: Mon Nov 14 15:42:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:

>Bad addi! Bad!


I sorry

: )

you sound like me yelling at my dog when he gets into the trash

Bad Hogan! BAD!


 
FN Posted: Mon Nov 14 16:59:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yeah, and none of the bible belters see anything wrong with that as long as it is this o reily guy writing it?

I don't know him, but from what I do know he'd probably use something like that to ridicule others.


 
Howitzer Posted: Wed Nov 16 15:19:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I may be a bible belter, but not a bible pelter, which is synomous to the bible thumper. That is what oriley is , a bible thumper. "What? You don't know what the bible says about that!!!" and then he procedes to thump you about the head and neck with the good book. He is an idiot with a mic, i bet he would still talk to empty cameras and a dead teleprompter if only to convert the metal and plastic parts to beleive in his bullshit.



 
Mesh Posted: Wed Nov 16 22:02:56 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>xcerpt from Bill O'Reilly's novel, "Those Who Trespass":
>
>"Ashley was now wearing only brief white panties. She had signaled her desire by removing her shirt and skirt, and by leaning back on the couch. She closed her eyes, concentrating on nothing but Shannon's tongue and lips. He gently teased her by licking the areas around her most sensitive erogenous zone. Then he slipped her panties down her legs and, within seconds, his tongue was inside her, moving rapidly."
>
>And I was forced to listen to the audiobook version of this passage with O'Reilly himself reading it.
>
>I got chills and my skin went cold.



He really wrote that? I guess I'm not surprised, what with that whole sexual harrasment thing I saw on the smoking gun. He sure has a dirty mind.


Now, had a Democrat or really just anyone who didn't follow in step the Neoconservative/christian right agenda, he would have thrown them into the hellfire.





 
addi Posted: Thu Nov 17 07:30:40 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:

>He really wrote that? I guess I'm not surprised, what with that whole sexual harrasment thing I saw on the smoking gun. He sure has a dirty mind.

lol
Yup, he did. And he really has it out in audiobook format too. I heard the part I quoted on the radio, along with another one where the guy surprised the girl by getting in the shower with her and going at it.
It made me want to take a shower when I got home and clean the scum off of me

Soooooo....dirty...must...wash...off....filth...

>Now, had a Democrat or really just anyone who didn't follow in step the Neoconservative/christian right agenda, he would have thrown them into the hellfire.

In all seriousness, I don't have anything against erotic literature. The world would be a sadder place without it. There's just something creepy I can't really explain about hearing O'Reilly read that kind of stuff. It makes me feel violated or something : )



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Nov 17 08:42:08 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's no worse than this crap from Barbara Boxers new *shudder* book:

Sex scene #1. It's between people.

Greg's naked body was long and elegant, his embrace enveloped her utterly, and they meshed with ease and grace. He smelled good too, faintly and astringently of aftershave. He was clinging to her as if he'd never let her go, it was all so easy and right.
Sex scene #2. It's between people as well, and once again they "mesh."

The bed was huge and soft with a blue and white comforter. He didn't notice Jane taking her clothes off but suddenly she was naked: long legged, lithe, and bronzed. The sheets were cool, her body warm, her limbs strong and supple, and they meshed with his just as he remembered. "Oh Greg, dearheart," she whispered in his ear, "I've missed you so. Welcome home."
Sex scene #3. Okay, okay, it isn't really about sex. It's about lust. But it's extraordinarily weird. Kneecaps?

Her skirt was very short, and Josh found himself mesmerized by her perfectly shaped, silken legs with kneecaps that reminded him of golden apples — he couldn't remember having been captivated by knees before — and her lustrous thighs. He tore his eyes away from Bianca's legs with the utmost difficulty.
Sex scene #4. It's between horses. No kidding. No "meshing." (And the first sentence is side-splittingly ungrammatical.)

A ton of finely tuned muscle, hide glistening, the crest of his mane risen in full sexual display, and his neck curved in an exaggerated arch that reminded Greg of a horse he'd seen in an old tapestry in some castle in Europe Jane had dragged him to. The stallion approached, nostrils flared, hooves lifting with delicate precision, the wranglers hanging on grimly. ... The stallion rubbed his nose against the mare's neck and nuzzled her withers. She promptly bit him on the shoulder and, when he attempted to mount, instantly became a plunging devil of teeth and hooves. ... Greg clutched the rails with white knuckles, wondering, as these two fierce animals were coerced into the majestic coupling by at least six people, how foals ever got born in the wild.



 
FN Posted: Thu Nov 17 14:38:58 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://mediamatters.org/items/200511100002


Seriously hif, what the fuck are you trying to defend this guy.


 
FN Posted: Thu Nov 17 14:50:55 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Can I also add to the last link that he makes it seem like nations whose citizens can usually speak english as well are america's bitch. Newsflash fucker, it's called education.

I speak 4 languages, so do about 90% of all the people I know, what about O'reily?




http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174889,00.html


You can also watch the video there.





For the record though: I don't mind the guy talking about stuff he has no clue about, as in tax rates in France and too many things to list it seems, but what I detest is people still claiming he's "spin free".





Seriously, want no spin and no beating around the bush? Fine; If you buy a word of what this guy says and even go as far as trying to pass it off as being correct (even though the guy probably would feel too good to piss on your head if it was on fire), you're marginalized and probably poorly educated trash that can't grasp the concept complex thought.

If the shoe fits, you can put it on.



But yeah, how do people ever come to resent america anyway?

I'll take it a bit further even, with stuff like this, it isn't "just the government which was elected with a majority of votes", but this degrades the american public as a whole because they're just standing by and making this program one of the most watched shows in the US from what I hear.



Last thing, if you don't believe in karma yet, I could name a few things concerning the US as well, buffalo bill.

Yeehaw y'all.


 
addi Posted: Thu Nov 17 17:09:53 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>but what I detest is people still claiming he's "spin free".

He's about as "spin free" as the spinning cycle on my washing machine


>I'll take it a bit further even, with stuff like this, it isn't "just the government which was elected with a majority of votes", but this degrades the american public as a whole because they're just standing by and making this program one of the most watched shows in the US from what I hear.

Half of the country is brain dead. I'll let you guess which half I think that is.




 
Mesh Posted: Thu Nov 17 17:31:47 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Here is a lovely passage from Scooter Libbys book.


The young samurai’s mother had the child sold to a brothel, where she swept the floors and oiled the men and watched the secret ways. At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest. Groups of men paid to watch. Like other girls who have been trained this way, she learned to handle many men in a single night and her skin turned a milky-white.




 
addi Posted: Thu Nov 17 18:37:17 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Oh, that Scooter


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Nov 17 22:54:40 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It's no worse than this crap from Barbara Boxers new *shudder* book:

Sex scene #1: Actual sex.

Sex scene #2: A kinky welcome home

Sex scene #3: A guy checking out a girl

Sex scene #4: I was at a book store today and flipped through the book after hearing about this scene. It's supposed to be a metaphor about the political/law making process.
And there is nothing wrong with that first sentence.


Let's compare with the scene from Scooter's book: (Scooter? The hell?)
Pedophilia? Check. Slavery? Check. Prostitution? Checkaroo. Bestiality? Yessirree, Bob.

Some more:
http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/libby/dirtypolitician/
Add abuse, child abuse, and rape to the mix. Also, give him Top Secret code clearance.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Nov 18 06:46:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Let's compare with the scene from Scooter's book: (Scooter? The hell?)
>Pedophilia? Check. Slavery? Check. Prostitution? Checkaroo. Bestiality? Yessirree, Bob.
>
What is your actual point here?
Are you saying that because he writes about it that he also condones it ?


 
addi Posted: Fri Nov 18 07:55:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Are you saying that because he writes about it that he also condones it ?

If it was non-fiction I'd say you have a valid point, hif. He would just be retelling actual historical events. But because "The Apprentice" is a work of fiction and came directly out of his twisted little brain (themes of homoeroticism, incest, the scatological, pedophilia, beastiality) i think one can safely conclude...

He's a very kinky guy...the kind you don't bring home to pappa...
He's a Super Freak!



*I'm no victorian prude. What bothers me the most about Libby, O'Reilly, Lynne Cheney, etc..., is the unbelievable hypocracy when they present themselves to the public as righteous upstanding christians, and are eager to cast the first stones at those sinful godless liberals for their acts of moral depravity. The double standard phoniness makes me sick to my stomach, not their literary creations.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Nov 18 08:22:54 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Are you saying that because he writes about it that he also condones it ?
>
>If it was non-fiction I'd say you have a valid point, hif. He would just be retelling actual historical events. But because "The Apprentice" is a work of fiction and came directly out of his twisted little brain (themes of homoeroticism, incest, the scatological, pedophilia, beastiality) i think one can safely conclude...
>
>He's a very kinky guy...the kind you don't bring home to pappa...
>He's a Super Freak!
>
Really, but below you say you're not a prude. You call him a freak with the evidence of a single paragraph, yet you consider yourself tolerant ? How much do you actually know about the man ?
Had you ever even heard of him before a couple of months ago ?
>
>*I'm no victorian prude. What bothers me the most about Libby, O'Reilly, Lynne Cheney, etc..., is the unbelievable hypocracy when they present themselves to the public as righteous upstanding christians, and are eager to cast the first stones at those sinful godless liberals for their acts of moral depravity. The double standard phoniness makes me sick to my stomach, not their literary creations.
>
I would agree with you if you were talking about Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, but you're just way off the mark with the names you just listed.
Maybe you should include the names of Dan Rather, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy,
Sheila Lee Jackson, and a whole host of other ones who thinks their shit don't stink. Hypocracy is the policy of record for the democrats.



 
addi Posted: Fri Nov 18 08:50:07 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Really, but below you say you're not a prude. You call him a freak with the evidence of a single paragraph, yet you consider yourself tolerant ?


Yes, I'm very tolerant of erotic fiction. Some of Scooter's subject matter crosses the line for my personal tastes (pissing on head of a dead deer for example), but to each their own i guess. Like I clearly stated above, it's the two-faced "I'm a good church going christian" public persona presented, and then demonstrating that they can write about subjects that would make some atheists blush.

You do realize that if the majority of evangelicals were intelligent enough to listen to something other than Fox News or the 700 club as news sources, and they heard about the specific content in these books they'd be filled with righteous indignation and would be calling for heads to roll.

How much do you actually know about the man ?

I've never lived with him so my personal knowledge is limited. I know about all I want to know about Mr. Libby.

>Had you ever even heard of him before a couple of months ago ?

Of course I have. I make it a point to know my enemies.

As much as I'm sincerely glad you post here, hif, and as much as I like you...I do have to say that your blind alliegence to any person connected to Bush is a bit baffling. I honestly wouldn't be too surprised if Scooter had been guilty of manslaughter, and I had the gall to say somthing negative about him, that you'd fire back at me with something like:
"Do you really know the man?!!"

There are some pretty slimey democrats out there, no doubt. Your incessant defense of ANYONE connected to Bush, damn the facts, tells me how open-minded you really are about political matters.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Nov 18 09:40:31 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>You do realize that if the majority of evangelicals were intelligent enough to listen to something other than Fox News or the 700 club as news sources, and they heard about the specific content in these books they'd be filled with righteous indignation and would be calling for heads to roll.
>
Perhaps some of them would, but these are the fringe elements you are speaking of. Certainly Mr. O'Reilly is not one of them, being as he is an Irish Catholic from Long Island.
>
>
>As much as I'm sincerely glad you post here, hif, and as much as I like you...I do have to say that your blind alliegence to any person connected to Bush is a bit baffling. I honestly wouldn't be too surprised if Scooter had been guilty of manslaughter, and I had the gall to say somthing negative about him, that you'd fire back at me with something like:
>"Do you really know the man?!!"
>
>There are some pretty slimey democrats out there, no doubt. Your incessant defense of ANYONE connected to Bush, damn the facts, tells me how open-minded you really are about political matters.
>
You couldn't be further from the truth,
I haven't defended Mr. Libby anywhere in this thread, I only gave him the benefit of the doubt as I would even for a liberal. You, in your rush to denigrate anyone connected to Bush had already convicted him based on almost no evidence whatsoever and then on the basis of a single paragraph would label him a pervert.
It would seem that his indictment could
very possibly be retracted now in light of the new evidence presented by Mr. Woodward, and there was obviously no crime committed against Ms.Plame.
As for his writing, I don't care what he writes about, you really can't tell a lot about a person by the fiction they produce. You judge a person by their deeds, not their fantasies, and certainly not one single paragraph.
As for my so called "blind allegiance" to anyone connected to Bush ?
That's my team and I support my team.
I trust Bush to make the right choices.
If he doesn't make the right choice, I won't crucify him for his mistakes.
If he betrays my trust that's a whole different ballgame. But he has not betrayed my trust yet and I don't think he will.
I don't know Scooter Libby and he might very well be an asshole of the highest order, but he shouldn't be railroaded because of political gamesmanship.


 
addi Posted: Fri Nov 18 10:21:00 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>addi said:
>>You do realize that if the majority of evangelicals were intelligent enough to listen to something other than Fox News or the 700 club as news sources, and they heard about the specific content in these books they'd be filled with righteous indignation and would be calling for heads to roll.

>Perhaps some of them would, but these are the fringe elements you are speaking of. Certainly Mr. O'Reilly is not one of them, being as he is an Irish Catholic from Long Island.

I was refering to the general evangelical voters out there in my paragraph..not Mr. O'Reilly.



>I haven't defended Mr. Libby anywhere in this thread, I only gave him the benefit of the doubt as I would even for a liberal.

Did Libby write it or didn't he?
And the day you give any liberal the benefit of the doubt is the day I order cilantro at a resturant.

>It would seem that his indictment could
>very possibly be retracted now in light of the new evidence presented by Mr. Woodward, and there was obviously no crime committed against Ms.Plame.

"Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case that a senior administration official had told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was disclosed."

"Citing a confidentiality agreement in which the source freed Woodward to testify but would not allow him to discuss their conversations publicly, Woodward and Post editors refused to disclose the official's name."

"The testimony, however, does not appear to shed new light on whether Libby is guilty of lying and obstructing justice in the nearly 2-year-old probe or provide new insight into the role of senior Bush adviser Karl Rove, who remains under investigation."


The only thing Mr. Woodwards new testimony does is open the door to still another whitehouse official leaking her identity to a member of the press. Where you get that any of this lets Libby (or Rove) off the hook is beyond me.








 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Nov 18 10:31:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  When you write, you purge yourself. It doesn't go away; you just let it off and open the door. It goes smack onto the page. And there it is.
Fiction isn't made up. It's a mirror. Chuck Palahniuk says, "Every story is a ghost."

Just because Scooter told Woodword that Joe Wilson's wife was an undercover CIA agent specializing in WMDs ('cause he did), doesn't clear Scooter. It just further implicates Scooter too.

Treason- purposely revealing the identity of a covert agent. Perjury- lying about your involvement in an ongoing criminal investigation.

And it's not a paragraph; it's the entire book.
http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3337



 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Nov 18 10:53:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>When you write, you purge yourself. It doesn't go away; you just let it off and open the door. It goes smack onto the page. And there it is.
>Fiction isn't made up. It's a mirror. Chuck Palahniuk says, "Every story is a ghost."
>
Based on that logic, then Anne Rice or Stephen King are very bad people.
>Just because Scooter told Woodword that Joe Wilson's wife was an undercover CIA agent specializing in WMDs ('cause he did), doesn't clear Scooter. It just further implicates Scooter too.
>
Now don't go putting words in anyone's mouth. It was Woodward that told Scooter she worked at the CIA.
Ms. Plame was NOT covert either.
It is very clear that to be a covert agent for the CIA you had to be assigned overseas within the last 5 years and the clearly was not the case with Ms. Plame.
>Treason- purposely revealing the identity of a covert agent. Perjury- lying about your involvement in an ongoing criminal investigation.
>
Neither of these crimes were committed by Scooter Libby, no matter how much you wish it were true.


 
addi Posted: Fri Nov 18 11:00:01 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Ms. Plame was NOT covert either.
>It is very clear that to be a covert agent for the CIA you had to be assigned overseas within the last 5 years and the clearly was not the case with Ms. Plame.


I wish I had the ability to just make things up, state them as truth and factual, and still have a clear conscious.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Nov 18 11:37:34 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>>
>I wish I had the ability to just make things up, state them as truth and factual, and still have a clear conscious.
>
Prove me wrong


 
FN Posted: Fri Nov 18 11:38:48 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Also, what kind of a name is scooter anyway?

Dictionary.com says:

scoot·er Audio pronunciation of "scooter" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sktr)
n.

1. A child's vehicle consisting of a long footboard between two small end wheels, controlled by an upright steering handle attached to the front wheel.
2. A motor scooter.
3. A flatbottom sailboat with runners that can skim over water or ice.



Why would anybody name their kid like that.


 
FN Posted: Fri Nov 18 11:39:32 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>addi said:
>>>
>>I wish I had the ability to just make things up, state them as truth and factual, and still have a clear conscious.
>>
>Prove me wrong


This stone keeps away tigers. There are no tigers around here.

Prove me wrong.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Nov 18 11:42:08 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>>Prove me wrong
>
>
>This stone keeps away tigers. There are no tigers around here.
>
>Prove me wrong.
>
That's easy, take that stone with you to the jungles of India and see if there are no tigers around.
Anywhere you go on the planet, the CIA rules governing a covert agent don't change.


 
FN Posted: Fri Nov 18 11:50:54 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The stone only works here though.


 
addi Posted: Fri Nov 18 12:07:20 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Prove me wrong

history tells me you don't let facts cloud your judgement : )

Directly from the mouth of Special Counsel Fitzgerald:

"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Nov 18 12:27:40 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Prove me wrong
>
>history tells me you don't let facts cloud your judgement : )
>
>Directly from the mouth of Special Counsel Fitzgerald:
>
>"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."

>
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Nov 18 12:30:41 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>The stone only works here though.
>
LOL


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Nov 18 12:45:07 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Prove me wrong
>
>history tells me you don't let facts cloud your judgement : )
>
>Directly from the mouth of Special Counsel Fitzgerald:
>
>"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."
>
you forgot the part of the quote where Mr. Fitzgerald said:

At his October 28, 2005, press conference, Special Counsel Fitzgerald was asked if he knew whether Libby revealed Plame's covert status knowingly; he responded:

"Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion."

Note very carefully THE FIRST SENTENCE.
Do you not understand the difference between classified and covert ?
They are two very different things.


 
FN Posted: Fri Nov 18 12:47:34 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://geilenkotten.homeunix.org:8001/george/index.htm


You can drag him around


 
addi Posted: Fri Nov 18 12:55:11 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html

and the point of this link means what?

that the special prosecutor doesn't know his head from his ass? that plame wasn't an agent? that it's okay to out any agent that isn't working an assignment overseas at the time? that rove or libby knew for certain that plame wasn't a covert agent so they thought it would be okay to make her name known to the public? that getting back at anyone (or their family) publically disagreeing with Bush's war policy is justified?

your defense of their actions just doesn't hold any weight with me, hif. Had officials under Clinton done exactly the same thing you and the conservatives would have formed a lynch mob to hang anyone involved in such a treasonous deed.
but because it's your president's top officials under investigation it's okay?
I mean, you are arguing against me on this so I can only assume you think leaking the name of a CIA agent (covert or not) is no big deal. That's not very hawkish of you.


 
addi Posted: Fri Nov 18 13:04:35 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>you forgot the part of the quote where >Mr. Fitzgerald said:

>"Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. >

>Note very carefully THE FIRST SENTENCE.
>Do you not understand the difference between classified and covert ?


Yes, dear, I understand the difference.

Do you understand that the determination of her "covert" status is still pending? That he left that door open? To say with certainty that Plame was not covert is putting the cart before the horse.
And does that mean if it is determined that Plame was classified, and not covert, at the time that that made it okay for these officials to out her?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Nov 18 13:14:34 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>you forgot the part of the quote where >Mr. Fitzgerald said:
>
>>"Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. >
>
>>Note very carefully THE FIRST SENTENCE.
>>Do you not understand the difference between classified and covert ?
>
>
>Yes, dear, I understand the difference.
>
>Do you understand that the determination of her "covert" status is still pending? That he left that door open? To say with certainty that Plame was not covert is putting the cart before the horse.
>And does that mean if it is determined that Plame was classified, and not covert, at the time that that made it okay for these officials to out her?
>
How can her covert status be pending ?
Either she was or she wasn't covert.

By the way it still hasn't been determined that it was these guys that outed her. No indictments have been issued and to be sure, it still remains to be seen if an actual crime has been committed.

I assure you that if it comes out that anyone in this administration outed a covert officer for political expediency, I will be first in line to lock him up.
Right now this just appears to me to be a partisan witch hunt on the part of the dems to get Rove and the Wilson/Plames are part of it.
They have been caught in so many lies about this whole affair, I can't believe the investigation is still underway. They have absolutely no credibility anymore.


 
addi Posted: Fri Nov 18 13:32:17 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>They have been caught in so many lies about this whole affair, I can't believe the investigation is still underway. They have absolutely no credibility anymore.

statements like the above are precisely why I should keep to my Friday: no political posting rule here.




 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]