Robert Novak: Joseph Wilson DID NOT forcefully object to publishing of Flame's name

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
:roll:

As per his usual MO, 1EZduzit's contribution consists solely of a personal attack on a forum member and adds absolutely NOTHING of value to the topic.

Do you have anything to say about the Plame affair that is a rebuttal to my comments on the issue or are you just going to be your usual ad hom-ish, trollish self?

Nobody with even half a brain would waste their time arguing with a liar.

iow, you can't make a rebuttal because you're not in possession of even half a brain.

 

[Stoneburner]

Really Chicken? I'm not letting you slide on this nonsense. Did you really read Hubris? For the sake of your credibility, admit you didn't. Second, who the fuck would say "did you read about plame's book?" So, where did you read ABOUT this book? Looks to me as though you got a third party source that claims there's something in the book and tried passing it off as though you read it. EZDUZIT is actually right... you are nothing but a liar.

And now you are dismissing evidence rather than claiming there is no evidence? Can you tell me on what grounds you are impeaching Chris Mathews words? Far as I can tell, HE HAS MORE CREDIBILITY THAN SOMEBODY WHO MAGICALLY READS BOOKS BEFORE THEY ARE RELEASED AND IS NOT A BOOK REVIEWER.

That source you cite SPECIFICALLY STATES. though tenet took the fall for it, like the betch he is, THE SAME CRAP WAS REMOVED FROM A PRIOR SPEECH. IF YOU HAD READ HUBRIS YOU"D KNOW ALL THE DETAILS.


So you're a liar with no arguments. And possibly dyslexic.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, wasn't there a case of a significant quantity of missing yellowcake just recently reported in the news? Apparently it's not all THAT difficult for yellowcake to disappear when the right amount of money is available, and Saddam had quite a little slush fund going.

Actually, Wilson reported that the yellowcake is *very* tightly controlled and there was no real danger of the Iraqis being able to buy any on any 'black market'.

That was a reason for his reporting that this was a non-issue, disregarded by the administration.

Yep. Tightly controlled:

http://www.blacklistednews.com/iNP/view.asp?ID=2570

I knew I read something fairly recently about missing uranium/yellowcake. Of course, as the article states, it's probably a psy-ops campiagn. :roll:

On an interesting side note, the Shikolobe (sp?) mine in the Congo that is the basis for that article you linked provided the uranium for the atomic bombs that were dropped by the US in WWII.

The same claim was made in the late 1990's - though back then it was the People's Republic of North Korea that was looting the mine for uranium - not Iran.

Bush probably took one from Clinton's playbook . . . lol

Very interesting, particularly since NK has reportedly developed nukes and, allegedly, Iran is on its way to that goal as well.

North Korea mines their own indigenous uranium - regretfully, reactors using natural-uranium fuel are more suitable for producing plutonium for weapons.

Known resources of indigenous uranium in Iran are limited and for the better part of the 1990's Clinton/Gore convinced Yeltsin not to develop Iranian mining capabilities.

If you want to put a big dent in Iran's nuke program you need to stop the Russian Defense Industrial Complex. The Richard Perle Plan is to buy 'em off.

Except there's very little information on the veracity of the NK uranium mine claims. The same conventional wisdoms about their mines have been circulating for years.

You do know that Kim Jong-il is also an expert at the internet too? Is there nothing that man can't do?

You are just blowing smoke. How does it feel to be a legend in your own mind? Simple Google searches will reveal that uranium has been mined in NK since the 1940's and reactors have operated in NK since the 1960s.

 

[Stoneburner]

Hey, heyheybooboo, Chicken just revealed he's a damn liar, and a bad one at that. And his pathetic lying is now immortalized in my signature

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Hey, heyheybooboo, Chicken just revealed he's a damn liar, and a bad one at that. And his pathetic lying is now immortalized in my signature

It's only going to get worse as The Republican Noise Machine gears up for the 2008 elections. If you check out
Topic Title: Republicans to tell the big lie again tonite.
"Tax cuts increase revenues". How stupid do they think we are?"

You'll see enough spin to induce motion sickness isgust;

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Disclosing locations and dates? Do you honestly believe you are more qualified than the CIA to label information classified or not? I'm all for openness, I love the National Security Archives, the GAO, and the Freedom of Information Act. But I'm not daft enough to draw a parallel between Bush's WMD information being classified simply because the CIA decided to keep classified the details of a formerly covert agent, whose status was blown according to the CIA and according to Plame, testified to under oath. Why would either the CIA or Plame lie again?

I wonder if you even realize how paranoid and asinine you sound in all of this.

Gotcha. The same type of argument the left levies against Bush about releasing classified information about Iraqs' WMDs does not apply when it concerns the darling of the left, Valerie Plame.

You bet I'm sounding assinine and I'm doing it on purpose to display the hypocrisy of the lefties for everyone to see. It's just more of their selective reasoning. What applies to one doesn't apply to another and the left will determine where and when it applies. And everyone else is "assinine." :roll:

What a bunch of maroons.

You're taking one argument from a one person and applying it to a different argument with a different person. The only person who sounds asisine here, I'm afraid, is you.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Really Chicken? I'm not letting you slide on this nonsense. Did you really read Hubris? For the sake of your credibility, admit you didn't. Second, who the fuck would say "did you read about plame's book?" So, where did you read ABOUT this book? Looks to me as though you got a third party source that claims there's something in the book and tried passing it off as though you read it. EZDUZIT is actually right... you are nothing but a liar.

And now you are dismissing evidence rather than claiming there is no evidence? Can you tell me on what grounds you are impeaching Chris Mathews words? Far as I can tell, HE HAS MORE CREDIBILITY THAN SOMEBODY WHO MAGICALLY READS BOOKS BEFORE THEY ARE RELEASED AND IS NOT A BOOK REVIEWER.

That source you cite SPECIFICALLY STATES. though tenet took the fall for it, like the betch he is, THE SAME CRAP WAS REMOVED FROM A PRIOR SPEECH. IF YOU HAD READ HUBRIS YOU"D KNOW ALL THE DETAILS.


So you're a liar with no arguments. And possibly dyslexic.

Quit trying to avoid the fact that you were wrong and that the CIA vetted the speech.

It's the same with a few of you lefties in here. You get your facts wrong or remove important context and omit important aspects, ignore it completely when you are wrong, and then try to attack the member instead of presenting your argument.

Are you going to admit that the CIA vetted the speech or not? Do you have proof that the CIA did not vet the speech? Are you going to recognize that Rove denied stating the words "fair game" to Chris Matthews and specifically said he didn't consider Plame "an appropropriate target in this debate."? Are you going to recognize that it was not the identical wording that was removed from previous speeches? It doesn't appear you are going to recognize that because you would be in the wrong on every one of those issues because you only know the superficial aspects of all that and parrot the usual lefty talking points on the subject.

Now stop trying to make this about me and focus on the argument instead, an argument which you are getting beat up on pretty severely. You have plenty of your own errors to address in this discussion and you keep try to side-step them.

And, yes, I read Hubris. I've also read Imperial Hubris. I've also read The Politics of Truth. Then there Uncovering Clinton. I read books all the time of all varieties. Do you actually believe that you're the only one who reads anything? Sheesh, what completely assholish arrogance that displays.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, wasn't there a case of a significant quantity of missing yellowcake just recently reported in the news? Apparently it's not all THAT difficult for yellowcake to disappear when the right amount of money is available, and Saddam had quite a little slush fund going.

Actually, Wilson reported that the yellowcake is *very* tightly controlled and there was no real danger of the Iraqis being able to buy any on any 'black market'.

That was a reason for his reporting that this was a non-issue, disregarded by the administration.

Yep. Tightly controlled:

http://www.blacklistednews.com/iNP/view.asp?ID=2570

I knew I read something fairly recently about missing uranium/yellowcake. Of course, as the article states, it's probably a psy-ops campiagn. :roll:

On an interesting side note, the Shikolobe (sp?) mine in the Congo that is the basis for that article you linked provided the uranium for the atomic bombs that were dropped by the US in WWII.

The same claim was made in the late 1990's - though back then it was the People's Republic of North Korea that was looting the mine for uranium - not Iran.

Bush probably took one from Clinton's playbook . . . lol

Very interesting, particularly since NK has reportedly developed nukes and, allegedly, Iran is on its way to that goal as well.

North Korea mines their own indigenous uranium - regretfully, reactors using natural-uranium fuel are more suitable for producing plutonium for weapons.

Known resources of indigenous uranium in Iran are limited and for the better part of the 1990's Clinton/Gore convinced Yeltsin not to develop Iranian mining capabilities.

If you want to put a big dent in Iran's nuke program you need to stop the Russian Defense Industrial Complex. The Richard Perle Plan is to buy 'em off.

Except there's very little information on the veracity of the NK uranium mine claims. The same conventional wisdoms about their mines have been circulating for years.

You do know that Kim Jong-il is also an expert at the internet too? Is there nothing that man can't do?

You are just blowing smoke. How does it feel to be a legend in your own mind? Simple Google searches will reveal that uranium has been mined in NK since the 1940's and reactors have operated in NK since the 1960s.

I'm getting pretty damn tired of the morons in here.

First of all, the initial claim you made is that uranium is tightly controlled by the IAEA. I demonstrated that uranium smuggling in Africa is not uncommon and it's not that tightly controlled.

Second of all I'm not claiming that NK has no uranium mines at all. I'm stating that the same info about those mines has been floating around since the early 90s and there are questions as to the veracity of how much uranium NK really has and how much is really being extracted.

Last, since you seem to be big on google, do some googling on NK being involved in the Shinkolobwe mine in the Congo.

No come back later and tell us who's been blowing smoke, fool.

 

[Stoneburner]

1) When did I say the CIA did not vet the speech my dyslexic dissembling friend? The question that has baffled so many is why the CIA removed reference to Niger from a previous speech and how these words got into the state of the union. Most evidence indicates it was somebody in feith's office or dick cheneys office that made sure the words were PUT IN or LEFT IN. Again, if you had read hubris you would know this. TENET tried taking the fall for this like a good lapdog, but the attempt failed because the facts did not support it.

2) And what is your source for this, Liar ? A book that has not been released yet? You are saying that Karl Rove's word is enough? Are you saying Karl Rove's Words through a second hand source that has not been released yet is enough? And you ask me to p rovide evidence? You are an absolute moron. Why would I believe Karl Rove over Chris Mathews anyway? Why would I believe Karl Rove over all the evidence collected by Patrick Fitzgerald which showed a specific targeting of VP? I find it baffling that you are saying "Karl Rove said X" and expect it to be taken as cannon. It is especially baffling SINCE YOU HAVE YET TO PROVIDE PROOF BESIDES AN UNRELEASED BOOK.

3) The question isn't whether you read or whether you are capable of reading, the question is how did you read a book that's unreleased? The way you referenced it, you made it seem as though I were a fool for not having read this unreleased book, which indicates you were trying to say you read it Because you're a shiftless liar and have no credibility? Then you say you read a book which answers questions which you keep asking, and wonder why I question if you read it? And then you post a bunch of nonsense that's irrelevant, misunderstand every other word aimed at you, and you wonder why I question your reading ability in general?


After being caught lying out your sphincter, you should really stop burying yourself further. You are a simple minded fool and a blatant liar and I'm becoming quite disgusted with myself for tolerating your drivel. Should I take anything you say seriously at this point without an explanation as to your reference to the plame book? How do you know what it states? IS there a review of it you read that you tried to pass off as first hand knowledge?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
1) When did I say the CIA did not vet the speech my dyslexic dissembling friend? The question that has baffled so many is why the CIA removed reference to Niger from a previous speech and how these words got into the state of the union. Most evidence indicates it was somebody in feith's office or dick cheneys office that made sure the words were PUT IN or LEFT IN. Again, if you had read hubris you would know this. TENET tried taking the fall for this like a good lapdog, but the attempt failed because the facts did not support it.

If you made no claim that the CIA did not vet the speech why did you ask:

"Where is the evidence the CIA vetted the speech?"

Does that mean you just didn't know?

The question here is what words were removed from previous speeches. Were they the same 16 words from the SOTU or other words? And if you'll read other information besides relying on Hubris alone you'd know it was the speechwriters themselves that decided to put the words in and the CIA vetted the speech and left the words in.

2) And what is your source for this, Liar ? A book that has not been released yet? You are saying that Karl Rove's word is enough? Are you saying Karl Rove's Words through a second hand source that has not been released yet is enough? And you ask me to p rovide evidence? You are an absolute moron. Why would I believe Karl Rove over Chris Mathews anyway? Why would I believe Karl Rove over all the evidence collected by Patrick Fitzgerald which showed a specific targeting of VP? I find it baffling that you are saying "Karl Rove said X" and expect it to be taken as cannon. It is especially baffling SINCE YOU HAVE YET TO PROVIDE PROOF BESIDES AN UNRELEASED BOOK.

Maybe it's because I keep up with things that you obviously do not or at least don't want to hear?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20302351/page/3/

MR. GREGORY: Do you think you owe Valerie Plame an apology?

MR. ROVE: No.

MR. GREGORY: You do not?

MR. ROVE: No.

MR. GREGORY: You considered her fair game in this debate?

MR. ROVE: No. And you know what? Fair game, that wasn?t my phrase. That?s a phrase of a journalist. In fact, a colleague of yours.

MR. GREGORY: Was she an appropriate target in this debate?

MR. ROVE: No.

MR. GREGORY: She was not.

MR. ROVE: No. Look, her husband wrote a op-ed that we now know by?in a statement issued on July 11th by the director of the CIA, backed by a report by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, was misleading and inaccurate. The vice president, the White House and the director of the CIA did not send Mr. Wilson to Africa to look into?to the question of uranium cake from Niger to Iraq. We also know that he did?he came?the information he came back with was not dispositive, was not conclusive, did not disprove the British intelligence finding that the Iraqis had attempted to acquire uranium cake. In fact, we now know that he brought back information not disclosed in his article that added to the belief, that confirmed the British intelligence report that the Iraqis had attempted to acquire uranium cake. He brought back information about a previously unknown contact where the Iraqis, working through a third party, attempted to bring and did bring to Niger a trade delegation. And since the only thing Niger had to sell was uranium cake that was on a U.N. sanctions list, they declined to do any business. He brought back information that affirmed the, the British intelligence report. After this all came out, the British did a study, did a review, appointed a commission to review their intelligence finding and came back and confirmed that they stood by their original assessment that, that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium yellow cake from Niger in?and exactly as was in the president?s speech.

Now, are you ready to retract the liar claim? Or are you going to continue to keep sticking your foot in your mouth?

3) The question isn't whether you read or whether you are capable of reading, the question is how did you read a book that's unreleased? The way you referenced it, you made it seem as though I were a fool for not having read this unreleased book, which indicates you were trying to say you read it Because you're a shiftless liar and have no credibility? Then you say you read a book which answers questions which you keep asking, and wonder why I question if you read it? And then you post a bunch of nonsense that's irrelevant, misunderstand every other word aimed at you, and you wonder why I question your reading ability in general?

I didn't claim I read a book that's unreleased. Try again.

After being caught lying out your sphincter, you should really stop burying yourself further. You are a simple minded fool and a blatant liar and I'm becoming quite disgusted with myself for tolerating your drivel. Should I take anything you say seriously at this point without an explanation as to your reference to the plame book? How do you know what it states? IS there a review of it you read that you tried to pass off as first hand knowledge?

Well I've given my answers above. If you aren't too embarrassed to return after making yet another fool of yourself, I'll be waiting for your apology, little tool boy.

 

[Stoneburner]

Here we go again. How do you explain your phrasing then? I think you struck on the wikipedia page on the book, assumed it was already released, and then found that david gregory conversation from there. Am i correct? YES or NO answers only please. You complain about me sounding assholish but you say "if you had read the plame book" assumption being YOU HAD, that I should have known about this. Instead, that wikipedia article is the one that mentions the david gregory conversation with rove. And now you are lying and saying "you keep up with stuff." when the truth is you got it from that article? Feel Free to correct me at any time here liar

So your argument is, Rove denied saying that? Here are your problems

1) Rove has no credibility. This man wiretapped himself and blamed an opposing campaign and called the media before he called the FBI. Read Bush's Brain for details.

2) Chris mathews has eminent credibility.

3) THE FITZGERALD INVESTIGATION showed specific targetting of VP. Read the indictment and any


Beyond all your lying and weaseling, the most disturbing thing about you is your tendency to say "I have a source, this proves you are wrong" How so? Do you ever weigh evidence?

The less disturbing but equally annoying thing about you is an inability to read. Look at Karl Rove's denial. IT'S NOT A DENIAL. Rove is alot smarter than you. Rove's pets are alot smarter than you so that's not saying much.



Now to confuse the thing even more, you take my request for EVIDENCE on the CIA vetting thing as a denial that it happened when YOU DID THE EXACT SAME THING. THe point I was aiming at was, if you had HONESTLY read Hubris you would know that there is an open question as to whether the speech was vetted and IF VETTED if the vetted version went to the whitehouse. THere is a very nice narrative on this matter SO GO READ THE DAMN BOOK YOU FILTHY LIAR. Your only evidence is from the LAPDOG Tenet who could not explain the contradiction in facts. He couldn't even fall on his sword correctly.


So keep contradicting yourself, keep lying about your sources, keep feigning knowledge even though your ignorance is transparently opaque. No wonder you defend this administration, you have the same tendency to tell blatant lies and try to weasel out of them. YOu have the same problem with selective reading and a complete misunderstanding of evidentiary standards and burdens of proof. To be succinct, you are a lying weasel.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

More side-stepping from you.

Stop wasting my times with your little speculative fantasies. Just admit you were wrong and move on. Your downward spiral into a reply that consists primarily of ad homs and unfounded, paranoid accusations and claims doesn't do a thing to make your case.

 

[Stoneburner]

I'll take that as a concession on the topic. But you still have to explain that phrase that's now in my signature. How was I supposed to read an unreleased book again?

I also like how you don't admit you got the information from the wiki This is the internets , you can admit you were being a stupid jackass Give it a try!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

:yawn:

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I stole from wikipedia, pretended to read a book that's not released, pretended to read another book I have never heard of, and am generally a terrible person

Thanks

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

:yawn:

 

[1EZduzit]

Nice sig Stoneburner

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If you bothered to read Plame's book, which was incidentally titled "Fair Game"

--------------------------------------


Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House

Availability: This title will be released on October 22, 2007. Pre-order now! Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.

Get 'em while their hot!! :laugh:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

Oh chee, color me shocked and surprised. :roll:

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Flame should both have been indicted, rather than Libby.

So much for Miss Undercover. Between the book and Vogue magazine, and Wilson not objecting to the publishing of her name, we can now see that the entire ordeal was just a left-wing partisan political persecution. Not that most of us had any doubt, of course.

Oh chee, Wilson is calling Novak a liar. Color me shocked and surprised. :roll:

http://thehill.com/leading-the...sation-2007-10-09.html

Ambassador Joe Wilson said he objected to columnist Robert Novak naming his wife as a CIA operative even before Novak wrote a 2003 column that later launched a federal investigation.


He added that Novak is lying or being disingenuous by saying that he, Wilson, did not forcefully object to the naming of his wife as a CIA operative.

?I hope he?s going to confession, because otherwise he?s going to hell,? Wilson said.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Don't worry 1EZduzit. Despite the fact I already explained that statement, he'll harp on it in order to ignore all his errors and incorrect statements in this thread, because that's what little boys like Stoneburner do.

The demonstration of his lack of maturity is pretty clear for all to see so all I have left to do from now on is yawn when he speaks since irritating little children like him are boring and tiresome.

 

[Lemon law]

As I said earlier on in this thread, we had not yet seen the Wilson version of the latest Novak contention. Now Wilson come out with a certain faith based human redemption message of hope. That either Novak must go to confession to beg forgiveness from God for the lie, or God will cast Novak into hell. And Wilson had previously gotten a somewhat message of human despair and a downgrade from having the laws of man result in having Karl Rove frog marched out of the White house.

I can't pretend to know the mind of God, but I think Wilson is quite right in being disappointed by the laws of man.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Don't worry 1EZduzit. Despite the fact I already explained that statement, he'll harp on it in order to ignore all his errors and incorrect statements in this thread, because that's what little boys like Stoneburner do.

The demonstration of his lack of maturity is pretty clear for all to see so all I have left to do from now on is yawn when he speaks since irritating little children like him are boring and tiresome.

You seem to be suffering from IIIDDS. That would be short for "Iraq, Iran, Islam Denial Derangement Syndrome".

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No, stupid. You claimed that Rove targeted Plame by his own admission. If you bothered to read Plame's book, which was incidentally titled "Fair Game" you'll also notice that Rove disavowed saying that, claiming those were Matthews' own words, and Rove stated that he didn't consider Plame "an appropropriate target in this debate."

As to the removal of the Niger claim from the speech, if you did a little due diligence instead of just parroting KOS and DU talking points you'd already know that they were NOT the same words in the previous speeches that was used in the SOTU address. Additionally the speech writers had assumed that there was now more evidence to suport the claim of Iraq attempting to procure yellowcake from Africa. And even though Tenet himself did not vett the speech (which is really a red herring because Tenet did not do such things, his underlings did) the SOTU address was reviewed at by the CIA and the 16 words were left in.

Once again you leave out pertinent information to try to make your point but you only make yourself look foolish, ignorant, and desperately reaching in the process of doing that. Someday you may learn how to tell the entire story and not look so mcuh like a partisan BDS troll.

LOL, explain it to me again 'cause I ain't buying the "forgot to put 'about' in there" excuse.

 

[Stoneburner]

He got it from here I think

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...yal_by_the_White_House

You'll notice they discuss karl rove denying he said "fair game" ??? So Chicken must have thought the book mentioned the denial And then after he was informed the book was not released, He probably went back and saw it was a convo with David Gregory. Then he posts directly to the convo and says something about keeping up with news.

At least, that's the only explanation that makes sense. Otherwise, how could I have "bothered" to read an unreleased book?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Don't worry 1EZduzit. Despite the fact I already explained that statement, he'll harp on it in order to ignore all his errors and incorrect statements in this thread, because that's what little boys like Stoneburner do.

The demonstration of his lack of maturity is pretty clear for all to see so all I have left to do from now on is yawn when he speaks since irritating little children like him are boring and tiresome.

You seem to be suffering from IIIDDS. That would be short for "Iraq, Iran, Islam Denial Derangement Syndrome".

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No, stupid. You claimed that Rove targeted Plame by his own admission. If you bothered to read Plame's book, which was incidentally titled "Fair Game" you'll also notice that Rove disavowed saying that, claiming those were Matthews' own words, and Rove stated that he didn't consider Plame "an appropropriate target in this debate."

As to the removal of the Niger claim from the speech, if you did a little due diligence instead of just parroting KOS and DU talking points you'd already know that they were NOT the same words in the previous speeches that was used in the SOTU address. Additionally the speech writers had assumed that there was now more evidence to suport the claim of Iraq attempting to procure yellowcake from Africa. And even though Tenet himself did not vett the speech (which is really a red herring because Tenet did not do such things, his underlings did) the SOTU address was reviewed at by the CIA and the 16 words were left in.

Once again you leave out pertinent information to try to make your point but you only make yourself look foolish, ignorant, and desperately reaching in the process of doing that. Someday you may learn how to tell the entire story and not look so mcuh like a partisan BDS troll.

LOL, explain it to me again 'cause I ain't buying the "forgot to put 'about' in there" excuse.

lol. What ever makes you think I would expect YOU to "buy it?"

You know, I caught a 6' shark this weekend while out on the charter boat and it was odd watching the remora swimming around it as I dragged it to the surface. They had detached themselves in case the shark wasn't going to survive. No doubt they reattached themselves once we cut it free. That's what you remind me of - a remora, a suckerfish. Their only sustenance is to suck on the products of another.

 

[Gaard]

Where did I say anything about Iraq?

Now here you are again lying.


Way back when I told you I thought you were the most dishonest person in these forums.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Don't worry 1EZduzit. Despite the fact I already explained that statement, he'll harp on it in order to ignore all his errors and incorrect statements in this thread, because that's what little boys like Stoneburner do.

The demonstration of his lack of maturity is pretty clear for all to see so all I have left to do from now on is yawn when he speaks since irritating little children like him are boring and tiresome.

You seem to be suffering from IIIDDS. That would be short for "Iraq, Iran, Islam Denial Derangement Syndrome".

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No, stupid. You claimed that Rove targeted Plame by his own admission. If you bothered to read Plame's book, which was incidentally titled "Fair Game" you'll also notice that Rove disavowed saying that, claiming those were Matthews' own words, and Rove stated that he didn't consider Plame "an appropropriate target in this debate."

As to the removal of the Niger claim from the speech, if you did a little due diligence instead of just parroting KOS and DU talking points you'd already know that they were NOT the same words in the previous speeches that was used in the SOTU address. Additionally the speech writers had assumed that there was now more evidence to suport the claim of Iraq attempting to procure yellowcake from Africa. And even though Tenet himself did not vett the speech (which is really a red herring because Tenet did not do such things, his underlings did) the SOTU address was reviewed at by the CIA and the 16 words were left in.

Once again you leave out pertinent information to try to make your point but you only make yourself look foolish, ignorant, and desperately reaching in the process of doing that. Someday you may learn how to tell the entire story and not look so mcuh like a partisan BDS troll.

LOL, explain it to me again 'cause I ain't buying the "forgot to put 'about' in there" excuse.

lol. What ever makes you think I would expect YOU to "buy it?"

You know, I caught a 6' shark this weekend while out on the charter boat and it was odd watching the remora swimming around it as I dragged it to the surface. They had detached themselves in case the shark wasn't going to survive. No doubt they reattached themselves once we cut it free. That's what you remind me of - a remora, a suckerfish. Their only sustenance is to suck on the fluids of another.

LOL, blow me liar.