Valerie Plame Wilson - "FAIR GAME" - her book is now available!

[Genx87]

Yeah, anybody who uses truthout.org has zero credibility.

lmao

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml

Truthout.org!!!!! You must be a professional comedian.

These people have as much credibility as a 5 year old. This is the site that said Rove had been indicted. And then refused to back down from that story even when Rove had been cleared by Fitz.
May 13 Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

May 19 The Rove Indictment Story as of Right Now

The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.

I don't think they ever admitted that their story was total BS.

It?s like Dan Rather ?yea the documents were fake, but they said what he would have said so the story is true.?

You oversized twat, those are Mathew Cooper's words I suspect you don't even know who mathew cooper is.

Dear yaweh you are an imbecile.

http://www.time.com/time/magaz...0,8816,1083870,00.html

See? Same story. You can click GO TO ORIGINAL.

I see GENX87 also is now admitting he can't read anything. How much can you buffoons botch before you get a life? I wish I had more signature space but this latest gaffe doesn't quite bump chickenboy.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
GENX87, Armitage was A leaker, and THE leaker who spoked to novak the first time. The second one was Rove. LIbby and Rove were leaking to various journalists. If you read the indictment the picture you get is that Cheney was the one running this campaign against Joe Wilson.

Give me a break, we have been over this a million times.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08...er=rssuserland&emc=rss

Mr. Armitage did not return calls for comment. But the lawyer and other associates of Mr. Armitage have said he has confirmed that he was the initial and primary source for the columnist, Robert D. Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, identified Valerie Wilson as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.

The identification of Mr. Armitage as the original leaker to Mr. Novak ends what has been a tantalizing mystery.

This is such a non-story it really paints you douchebags on the left in a worse light than you are typically painted.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml

Truthout.org!!!!! You must be a professional comedian.

These people have as much credibility as a 5 year old. This is the site that said Rove had been indicted. And then refused to back down from that story even when Rove had been cleared by Fitz.
May 13 Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

May 19 The Rove Indictment Story as of Right Now

The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.

I don't think they ever admitted that their story was total BS.

It?s like Dan Rather ?yea the documents were fake, but they said what he would have said so the story is true.?

Of course, citing Politico.com isn't much better considering the roots of those editors; Wiki:

Frederick J. Ryan Jr., former Assistant to U.S. President Ronald Reagan[2], and currently chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation, is president and CEO of The Politico.[3]

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
GENX87, Armitage was A leaker, and THE leaker who spoked to novak the first time. The second one was Rove. LIbby and Rove were leaking to various journalists. If you read the indictment the picture you get is that Cheney was the one running this campaign against Joe Wilson.

Give me a break, we have been over this a million times.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08...er=rssuserland&emc=rss

Mr. Armitage did not return calls for comment. But the lawyer and other associates of Mr. Armitage have said he has confirmed that he was the initial and primary source for the columnist, Robert D. Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, identified Valerie Wilson as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.

The identification of Mr. Armitage as the original leaker to Mr. Novak ends what has been a tantalizing mystery.

This is such a non-story it really paints you douchebags on the left in a worse light than you are typically painted.

No, a douchebag is somebody who says "

Yeah, anybody who uses truthout.org has zero credibility.

lmao '

A douchebag is also somebody who keeps running around in circles. Did you know Novak spoke with Rove? Did you know Libby spoke to Judith Miller? Did you know Libby lied about this entire mess? Did you know Rove was near an indictment himself? Did you know Libby was convicted? Did you know Libby found the need to lie to cover up a "non story" ?

Of course not, you don't actually bother reading anything, you just come to a conclusion based on what political identity your friends and family threw on you all those years ago when you weren't a complete douchebag.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml

Truthout.org!!!!! You must be a professional comedian.

These people have as much credibility as a 5 year old. This is the site that said Rove had been indicted. And then refused to back down from that story even when Rove had been cleared by Fitz.
May 13 Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

May 19 The Rove Indictment Story as of Right Now

The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.

I don't think they ever admitted that their story was total BS.

It?s like Dan Rather ?yea the documents were fake, but they said what he would have said so the story is true.?

Of course, citing Politico.com isn't much better considering the roots of those editors; Wiki:

Frederick J. Ryan Jr., former Assistant to U.S. President Ronald Reagan[2], and currently chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation, is president and CEO of The Politico.[3]

The problem is, that was something Mathew Cooper wrote for time. I just used whatever link Google came up with first. So profjohn and genx87 just revealed they are dumber than previously thought humanly possible.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml

Truthout.org!!!!! You must be a professional comedian.

These people have as much credibility as a 5 year old. This is the site that said Rove had been indicted. And then refused to back down from that story even when Rove had been cleared by Fitz.
May 13 Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

May 19 The Rove Indictment Story as of Right Now

The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.

I don't think they ever admitted that their story was total BS.

It?s like Dan Rather ?yea the documents were fake, but they said what he would have said so the story is true.?

Of course, citing Politico.com isn't much better considering the roots of those editors; Wiki:

Frederick J. Ryan Jr., former Assistant to U.S. President Ronald Reagan[2], and currently chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation, is president and CEO of The Politico.[3]

umm what the hell are you talking about?

Where did I cite Politico.com? I don't think I have even been to that website.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml

Truthout.org!!!!! You must be a professional comedian.

These people have as much credibility as a 5 year old. This is the site that said Rove had been indicted. And then refused to back down from that story even when Rove had been cleared by Fitz.
May 13 Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

May 19 The Rove Indictment Story as of Right Now

The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.

I don't think they ever admitted that their story was total BS.

It?s like Dan Rather ?yea the documents were fake, but they said what he would have said so the story is true.?

Of course, citing Politico.com isn't much better considering the roots of those editors; Wiki:

Frederick J. Ryan Jr., former Assistant to U.S. President Ronald Reagan[2], and currently chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation, is president and CEO of The Politico.[3]

The problem is, that was something Mathew Cooper wrote for time. I just used whatever link Google came up with first. So profjohn and genx87 just revealed they are dumber than previously thought humanly possible.

And you?re so steeped in leftist BS that you didn?t even realize that Truthout is one of the worse sources on the net.

Here we are a year and a half latter and they have yet to admit that their Rove story was 100% wrong.

I suggest that in the future when looking to quote someone or something you look for a neutral or at least reliable web site.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
GENX87, Armitage was A leaker, and THE leaker who spoked to novak the first time. The second one was Rove. LIbby and Rove were leaking to various journalists. If you read the indictment the picture you get is that Cheney was the one running this campaign against Joe Wilson.

Give me a break, we have been over this a million times.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08...er=rssuserland&emc=rss

Mr. Armitage did not return calls for comment. But the lawyer and other associates of Mr. Armitage have said he has confirmed that he was the initial and primary source for the columnist, Robert D. Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, identified Valerie Wilson as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.

The identification of Mr. Armitage as the original leaker to Mr. Novak ends what has been a tantalizing mystery.

This is such a non-story it really paints you douchebags on the left in a worse light than you are typically painted.

No, a douchebag is somebody who says "

Yeah, anybody who uses truthout.org has zero credibility.

lmao '

A douchebag is also somebody who keeps running around in circles. Did you know Novak spoke with Rove? Did you know Libby spoke to Judith Miller? Did you know Libby lied about this entire mess? Did you know Rove was near an indictment himself? Did you know Libby was convicted? Did you know Libby found the need to lie to cover up a "non story" ?

Of course not, you don't actually bother reading anything, you just come to a conclusion based on what political identity your friends and family threw on you all those years ago when you weren't a complete douchebag.

I'd say somebody who says this

Yeah, anybody who uses truthout.org has zero credibility.

lmao '

Is somebody who has much better gauge of a biased site.

What does it matter if they spoke to Rove? That cat was let out of the bag by Armitage. Reporters running around confirming what armitage said is a non-story.

If you bother to look back through my posts on this subject you will see I basically laid off until the grand jury was over. If there was a true leak of a covert op they needed to be punished. If no law was broken then so be it. Libby being convicted because he couldnt remember everything to a T is laughable. Basically it says the govt can bring you in to grand jury to testify and if you cant remember everything to a T, they can slap perjury and obstruction of justice charges on you. The best part was watching the reporters squirm once they understood the ramifications of Libbys indictment. If they didnt have their shit together they would end up on trial as well.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I suggest that in the future when looking to quote someone or something you look for a neutral or at least reliable web site.

Next it'll be DailyKookS, C&L, Bluffington, or DU.

When it comes to reliable, objective sources - the lefties got it down.

 

[Stoneburner]

Profjohn, why are you trying? You posted a criticism of something without even looking at what it said. Unless you can show me how that particular source was incorrect, shouldn't you be apologizing for your stupidity? If you had clicked on it and read that it was by Mathew Cooper, you would have known who mathew cooper was and why he was writing it. you just revealed several layers of idiocy, so just take your L and move on. I never even see truthout before in my life, i just did a google search to remember cooper's last name and found his article.

I am asking you for the 90th time, are you really a professor? There is no way somebody who consistently says such stupid things could be teaching anything.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Not enough evidence to convict != innocent of alleged crime. Just because you are able to get away with something doesn't mean you still didn't do it.

Maybe that is your biggest problem, you don't understand simple logic/concepts. Which kinda baffles me because you seem to love GW and it doesn't get much simpler than that.

Excuse me? I think it's you who doesn't under stand the simple logic of innocent until proven guilty.

This thread is going nowhere.

So, if you commit a murder but are not prosecuted for it....that means that you didn't commit murder?

I guess expecting people to understand that innocent is not just a legal term but a term that relates to whether a person performed a certain act is too much for me to do.

in·no·cent (in'?-s?nt) pronunciation
adj.

1. Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child.

Great. So that means Joe Wilson is a lying scumbag and a traitor even though he was not convicted of such a crime or even brought to trial. Someone merely has to deem it so and, poof, it's automatically true.

Cool how that works. Saves the trouble of dealing with all that messy judicial stuff.

He lied about what exactly? Link?

http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1089562369.shtml

Incredibly, the former ambassador's wife's involvement was even deeper than has been reported. Section (U) reads:

On February 19,2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR anaylst's notes indicate that the meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.' The former ambassador's wife told Commmittee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.

At least we now know that Wilson clearly lied about his wife's involvement. In his book, pompously (and ironically) titled "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir", he states, "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" and "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." My goodness. What we have here is an outright contradiction of his previous assertions, in writing, by the ambassador himself. Here's what Wilson told Time in 2003 when asked of his wife's involvement - "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case." I suppose he felt the truth would never come out, but now that it has, he has resorted to a Clintonian parsing of words, saying of her memo suggesting him for the trip, "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me." Really Joseph? Well normal people certainly will. And they will now see you as an opportunistic liar.

Craig234 may not comprehend the above because, afaik, the crayon font is not available in this forum.

So, then Wilson's wife sent him on a mission that was a wild goose chase?

I don't understand how Wilson is a traitor by any means. Care to explain?

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I suggest that in the future when looking to quote someone or something you look for a neutral or at least reliable web site.

Next it'll be DailyKookS, C&L, Bluffington, or DU.

When it comes to reliable, objective sources - the lefties got it down.

The source was MATHEW COOPER's article at TIME, posted on TRUTHOUT. So a third addled brain right winger gets caught in a trap nobody set.

This gets to a larger problem... Profjohn has attacked truthout for a mistake they've made, you're attacking websites based on their political inclination. So you've now dropped below the impossible bar Profjohn set Congratulation

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Tab
So, then Wilson's wife sent him on a mission that was a wild goose chase?

Yep. And she lied about it too.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml

Truthout.org!!!!! You must be a professional comedian.

These people have as much credibility as a 5 year old. This is the site that said Rove had been indicted. And then refused to back down from that story even when Rove had been cleared by Fitz.
May 13 Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

May 19 The Rove Indictment Story as of Right Now

The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.

I don't think they ever admitted that their story was total BS.

It?s like Dan Rather ?yea the documents were fake, but they said what he would have said so the story is true.?

Of course, citing Politico.com isn't much better considering the roots of those editors; Wiki:

Frederick J. Ryan Jr., former Assistant to U.S. President Ronald Reagan[2], and currently chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation, is president and CEO of The Politico.[3]

umm what the hell are you talking about?

Where did I cite Politico.com? I don't think I have even been to that website.

You haven't visited a web site you cited by name 2 weeks ago?

And have quoted in other threads?

And used as a source for your very own thread?

Your memory is as bad as Libby's.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Tab
So, then Wilson's wife sent him on a mission that was a wild goose chase?

Yep. And she lied about it too.

Weren't you just ranting about nonobjective sources? Did you see that particular source?

IT's like shooting monkey's in a barrel. With an RPG.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Tab
So, then Wilson's wife sent him on a mission that was a wild goose chase?

Yep. And she lied about it too.

So let me get this straight.

Valerie Plame sent her husband on a wild goose chase in Niger in order to discredit the Bush Administration on purpose?

At least that's the just of what I am understanding from a few.

 

[Stoneburner]

LMFAO @ EVAN...


I see profjohn doesn't even understand his own sources.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
You haven't visited a web site you cited by name 2 weeks ago?

And have quoted in other threads?

And used as a source for your very own thread?

Your memory is as bad as Libby's.

ahhhh now I see. I got there via Drudge. Most of my threads are based on stories fund on Drudge.

I do not go to that web site on my own and would have never been there had it not been for the Drudge link.

Even with that I don't think you can compare the Politico to Truthout.org.

Truthout is a far left web site.
The Politico is a political journalism organization run by former Washington Post reporters.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
You haven't visited a web site you cited by name 2 weeks ago?

And have quoted in other threads?

And used as a source for your very own thread?

Your memory is as bad as Libby's.

ahhhh now I see. I got there via Drudge. Most of my threads are based on stories fund on Drudge.

I do not go to that web site on my own and would have never been there had it not been for the Drudge link.

Even with that I don't think you can compare the Politico to Truthout.org.

Truthout is a far left web site.
The Politico is a political journalism organization run by former Washington Post reporters.

I got to truthout from GOOGLE. That Truthout article was actually a TIME ARTICLE.

Problem is, you directly reference politico in one of those threads.

ANother problem is, you still utterly fukked up by claiming truthout was the SOURCE. See, the true source for your crap was POLITICO. The true source for the cooper article was COOPER. So just how confused and/or hypocritical are you?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
You haven't visited a web site you cited by name 2 weeks ago?

And have quoted in other threads?

And used as a source for your very own thread?

Your memory is as bad as Libby's.

ahhhh now I see. I got there via Drudge. Most of my threads are based on stories fund on Drudge.

I do not go to that web site on my own and would have never been there had it not been for the Drudge link.

Even with that I don't think you can compare the Politico to Truthout.org.

Truthout is a far left web site.
The Politico is a political journalism organization run by former Washington Post reporters.

I got to truthout from GOOGLE. That Truthout article was actually a TIME ARTICLE.

Problem is, you directly reference politico in one of those threads.

ANother problem is, you still utterly fukked up by claiming truthout was the SOURCE. See, the true source for your crap was POLITICO. The true source for the cooper article was COOPER. So just how confused and/or hypocritical are you?

Listen, no one gives a shit where you got truthout from, just like no one gives a shit where ProfJohn got Politico from. In case you haven't noticed, anytime someone posts a link from either a far left or a far right website, radio show, newspaper, etc.. they get called on it, and no one pays attention to their point. This is probably why most of the liberals here discount everything that PJ posts and stalk him from thread to thread with constant personal attacks. And he doesn't even get that much from right wing sources, he just continually posts Republican talking points, or conservative view points.

Now, if you want to be the PJ of the left (meaning that no one on the other side is going to listen to a thing that you say), then keep on posting stuff from left wing sources and just stick to your Democratic talking points, you'll find good company with Techs, Senseamp, Craig, etc... Or, just don't post crap from far left sources and lay off the talking points.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Not enough evidence to convict != innocent of alleged crime. Just because you are able to get away with something doesn't mean you still didn't do it.

Maybe that is your biggest problem, you don't understand simple logic/concepts. Which kinda baffles me because you seem to love GW and it doesn't get much simpler than that.

Excuse me? I think it's you who doesn't under stand the simple logic of innocent until proven guilty.

This thread is going nowhere.

So, if you commit a murder but are not prosecuted for it....that means that you didn't commit murder?

I guess expecting people to understand that innocent is not just a legal term but a term that relates to whether a person performed a certain act is too much for me to do.

in·no·cent (in'?-s?nt) pronunciation
adj.

1. Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child.

Great. So that means Joe Wilson is a lying scumbag and a traitor even though he was not convicted of such a crime or even brought to trial. Someone merely has to deem it so and, poof, it's automatically true.

Cool how that works. Saves the trouble of dealing with all that messy judicial stuff.

He lied about what exactly? Link?

http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1089562369.shtml

Incredibly, the former ambassador's wife's involvement was even deeper than has been reported. Section (U) reads:

On February 19,2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR anaylst's notes indicate that the meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.' The former ambassador's wife told Commmittee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.

At least we now know that Wilson clearly lied about his wife's involvement. In his book, pompously (and ironically) titled "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir", he states, "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" and "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." My goodness. What we have here is an outright contradiction of his previous assertions, in writing, by the ambassador himself. Here's what Wilson told Time in 2003 when asked of his wife's involvement - "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case." I suppose he felt the truth would never come out, but now that it has, he has resorted to a Clintonian parsing of words, saying of her memo suggesting him for the trip, "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me." Really Joseph? Well normal people certainly will. And they will now see you as an opportunistic liar.

Craig234 may not comprehend the above because, afaik, the crayon font is not available in this forum.

So, then Wilson's wife sent him on a mission that was a wild goose chase?

I don't understand how Wilson is a traitor by any means. Care to explain?

Wilson lied about his wife's involvement.

His traitorous actions came later, including being the first person to divulge that Valerie Plame was covert. Nobody even knew that fact until Wilson spilled the beans to David Corn two days after the Novak article.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Not enough evidence to convict != innocent of alleged crime. Just because you are able to get away with something doesn't mean you still didn't do it.

Maybe that is your biggest problem, you don't understand simple logic/concepts. Which kinda baffles me because you seem to love GW and it doesn't get much simpler than that.

Excuse me? I think it's you who doesn't under stand the simple logic of innocent until proven guilty.

This thread is going nowhere.

So, if you commit a murder but are not prosecuted for it....that means that you didn't commit murder?

I guess expecting people to understand that innocent is not just a legal term but a term that relates to whether a person performed a certain act is too much for me to do.

in·no·cent (in'?-s?nt) pronunciation
adj.

1. Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child.

Great. So that means Joe Wilson is a lying scumbag and a traitor even though he was not convicted of such a crime or even brought to trial. Someone merely has to deem it so and, poof, it's automatically true.

Cool how that works. Saves the trouble of dealing with all that messy judicial stuff.

He lied about what exactly? Link?

http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1089562369.shtml

Incredibly, the former ambassador's wife's involvement was even deeper than has been reported. Section (U) reads:

On February 19,2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR anaylst's notes indicate that the meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.' The former ambassador's wife told Commmittee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.

At least we now know that Wilson clearly lied about his wife's involvement. In his book, pompously (and ironically) titled "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir", he states, "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" and "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." My goodness. What we have here is an outright contradiction of his previous assertions, in writing, by the ambassador himself. Here's what Wilson told Time in 2003 when asked of his wife's involvement - "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case." I suppose he felt the truth would never come out, but now that it has, he has resorted to a Clintonian parsing of words, saying of her memo suggesting him for the trip, "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me." Really Joseph? Well normal people certainly will. And they will now see you as an opportunistic liar.

Craig234 may not comprehend the above because, afaik, the crayon font is not available in this forum.

So, then Wilson's wife sent him on a mission that was a wild goose chase?

I don't understand how Wilson is a traitor by any means. Care to explain?

Wilson lied about his wife's involvement.

His traitorous actions came later, including being the first person to divulge that Valerie Plame was covert. Nobody even knew that fact until Wilson spilled the beans to David Corn two days after the Novak article.

Yes, I think you already established that with your link Wilson may have lied about his wife's involvement with his Nigerian assignment however that is not what I asked.

Are you claiming that Wilson is traitor because he admitted that his wife was a covert CIA agent? I am not sure what you're getting at exactly...

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
You haven't visited a web site you cited by name 2 weeks ago?

And have quoted in other threads?

And used as a source for your very own thread?

Your memory is as bad as Libby's.

ahhhh now I see. I got there via Drudge. Most of my threads are based on stories fund on Drudge.

I do not go to that web site on my own and would have never been there had it not been for the Drudge link.

Even with that I don't think you can compare the Politico to Truthout.org.

Truthout is a far left web site.
The Politico is a political journalism organization run by former Washington Post reporters.

I got to truthout from GOOGLE. That Truthout article was actually a TIME ARTICLE.

Problem is, you directly reference politico in one of those threads.

ANother problem is, you still utterly fukked up by claiming truthout was the SOURCE. See, the true source for your crap was POLITICO. The true source for the cooper article was COOPER. So just how confused and/or hypocritical are you?

Listen, no one gives a shit where you got truthout from, just like no one gives a shit where ProfJohn got Politico from. In case you haven't noticed, anytime someone posts a link from either a far left or a far right website, radio show, newspaper, etc.. they get called on it, and no one pays attention to their point. This is probably why most of the liberals here discount everything that PJ posts and stalk him from thread to thread with constant personal attacks. And he doesn't even get that much from right wing sources, he just continually posts Republican talking points, or conservative view points.

Now, if you want to be the PJ of the left (meaning that no one on the other side is going to listen to a thing that you say), then keep on posting stuff from left wing sources and just stick to your Democratic talking points, you'll find good company with Techs, Senseamp, Craig, etc... Or, just don't post crap from far left sources and lay off the talking points.

Mathew Cooper is a left wing source? Why do you say anything when you clearly understand nothing? And you wonder why I refer to you as a child, you're petulant whenever you get criticized for doing something stupid.

Chicken, besides the fact I've never heard that before, it is entirely irrelevant. She had BUSINESS dealings and had foreign assets that were blown. It wasn't the fact she was covert that was important but the fact she was a CIA operative at all. Now you're going to claim "EVERYBODY KNEW IT!" even though there is no single credible source which says it and because you are a predictable liar. The point was, she was a covert operative who had her identity blown. The fact she was covert is not what's operative here but the reasons she was covert.

Let's say I find out your anandtech password is "ILUVDOGS". Then you say "that's my password for everything!" Do you think it matters you told me that? Because i'm going to try that password on everything REGARDLESS.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
You haven't visited a web site you cited by name 2 weeks ago?

And have quoted in other threads?

And used as a source for your very own thread?

Your memory is as bad as Libby's.

ahhhh now I see. I got there via Drudge. Most of my threads are based on stories fund on Drudge.

I do not go to that web site on my own and would have never been there had it not been for the Drudge link.

Even with that I don't think you can compare the Politico to Truthout.org.

Truthout is a far left web site.
The Politico is a political journalism organization run by former Washington Post reporters.

So you'll point out a single mistake of a leftist web site like Truthout yet completely miss the boat on a right-wing leaning web site like Politico? Yet you go on to claim that you don't think Politico and Truthout can be compared in terms of bias, despite your claim mere minutes before this statement that you couldn't even remember visiting Politico? And you wonder why people question your motives in every thread?

The fact that Politico (a web site I like btw) has two former Washington post editors doesn't absolve it from biases, just as you have continually pointed out with NY Times articles. Again, Truthout has clear left-wing biases, but your poorly researched/hashed together argument for why it's null and void when that exact same information can be found from direct sources (Cooper) in addition to other independent outfits (Time) makes your criticism moot; even far-left papers like the NY Times posts information that is highly accurate and well-researched, despite their well-known gaffes over the years.