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

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner



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.

<snip>

Ok, pay attention. You LINKED to a far left website, truthout.org, you are going to get shit for doing that. If you posted a link to DailyKOS, or a link to Free Republic, saying that Christmas day is December 25, you're going to get shit for linking to a far left/far right wing website, it doesn't matter if its true or not. I'm saying that thats right, thats just how it is.

And what did I do that was stupid, ask you for a link to back up what you were saying? Thats pretty common. Most people, *gasp* actually post their sources with their original commentary.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 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...

He "may" have lied?

I'm claiming Wilson was falsely trying to undermine the war efort and by doing so providing aid and comfort to the enemy. He was also doing his part in a political stunt to sway the '04 election. I seriously doubt a long-time politician like Wilson just suddenly decided to work for the Kerry campaign.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 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...

He "may" have lied?

I'm claiming Wilson was falsely trying to undermine the war efort and by doing so providing aid and comfort to the enemy. He was also doing his part in a political stunt to sway the '04 election. I seriously doubt a long-time politician like Wilson just suddenly decided to work for the Kerry campaign.

There are quite a few credible sources and individuals that dispute your claims and I have not made up my mind on the matter.

How was Wilson falsely trying to undermine the war effort? Second, to my understanding Wilson is not a politician and it's news to me that he was involved in the 2004 elections aside from voting.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 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...

He "may" have lied?

I'm claiming Wilson was falsely trying to undermine the war efort and by doing so providing aid and comfort to the enemy. He was also doing his part in a political stunt to sway the '04 election. I seriously doubt a long-time politician like Wilson just suddenly decided to work for the Kerry campaign.

There are quite a few credible sources and individuals that dispute your claims and I have not made up my mind on the matter.

How was Wilson falsely trying to undermine the war effort? Second, to my understanding Wilson is not a politician and it's news to me that he was involved in the 2004 elections aside from voting.

Wilson is not a politician? I guess he can be called a diplomat, if one wants to split hairs.

Wilson was foreign policy advisor to Kerry during his '04 campaign (though once the SSCI report came out in July of '04, that relationship quickly ended):

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0218-13.htm

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Wilson is not a politician? I guess he can be called a diplomat, if one wants to split hairs.

Please tell everyone you aren't this dumb! I really hope my sarcasm meter is seriously broken.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Stoneburner



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.

<snip>

Ok, pay attention. You LINKED to a far left website, truthout.org, you are going to get shit for doing that. If you posted a link to DailyKOS, or a link to Free Republic, saying that Christmas day is December 25, you're going to get shit for linking to a far left/far right wing website, it doesn't matter if its true or not. I'm saying that thats right, thats just how it is.

And what did I do that was stupid, ask you for a link to back up what you were saying? Thats pretty common. Most people, *gasp* actually post their sources with their original commentary.

I wasn't confused as to the problem, I was pointing out the reaction was stupid. Sure people can call me out and look stupid, but don't be shocked when I point it out. Again, you are an annoying child that's 10 steps behind, so please just read and try to learn rather than interject with your brand of E-Tourettes.

 

[Stoneburner]

I wonder how Chicken explains Wilson giving money to GWB in 2000.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Stoneburner



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.

<snip>

Ok, pay attention. You LINKED to a far left website, truthout.org, you are going to get shit for doing that. If you posted a link to DailyKOS, or a link to Free Republic, saying that Christmas day is December 25, you're going to get shit for linking to a far left/far right wing website, it doesn't matter if its true or not. I'm saying that thats right, thats just how it is.

And what did I do that was stupid, ask you for a link to back up what you were saying? Thats pretty common. Most people, *gasp* actually post their sources with their original commentary.

I wasn't confused as to the problem, I was pointing out the reaction was stupid. Sure people can call me out and look stupid, but don't be shocked when I point it out. Again, you are an annoying child that's 10 steps behind, so please just read and try to learn rather than interject with your brand of E-Tourettes.

Still not paying attention I see....If you'll notice, I never questioned your link to truthout or the facts behind it. So once again, what was it that I did that you consider stupid? It would be nice if you could make a post without calling people "children". You're like Craigs retarded cousin.

Edit - Sorry to lump him in with you Craig, but the way he talks down to every single conservative reminds me of you. At least Craig writes some pretty well thought out posts instead of just blurting out crap.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I wonder how Chicken explains Wilson giving money to GWB in 2000.

He gave Bush a grand. He gave Gore 2 grand. And he voted for Gore.

Any more questions, Stoner?

 

[Stoneburner]

Let see, he served under both parties, he's given money to both parties, he publicly stated he has voted for both parties.

I'll let you make up and answer your own question. I'll also let you explain the lavish praised bush classic heaped on him. I'll also let you provide a source for your claims, besides "antimedia"

I suspect you're doing the same crap you did last time you embarrassed the human race on this issue. You are using a single questionable source and pretending as though you have thorough knowledge. Last time you claimed you read "Hubris" and then admitted you did not.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
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.

Evan, you can not compare truthout to Politico.

Politico is a news organization that writes on a wide variety of politically oriented stories.
Truthout is a left wing propaganda site.

Politico may lead to the right, as you claim, but their entire existence is not built on bashing the left.
Truthout leans to the left and has its entire existence based on bashing the right.

Do you not understand this difference?

Furthermore, the problem is not the content he linked to, it is the very fact that he linked to Truthout in the first place.

Next time we have a debate about Hillary I?ll post a link to the FreeRepublic and we?ll see how long it takes before someone on the left jumps all over me for the link.

The mere fact that stoneburner thinks that Truthout is a site worth linking to exhibits his FAR left leaning. Most of the lefties on here would have known better than to post to a site like that.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
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.

Evan, you can not compare truthout to Politico.

Politico is a news organization that writes on a wide variety of politically oriented stories.
Truthout is a left wing propaganda site.

Politico may lead to the right, as you claim, but their entire existence is not built on bashing the left.
Truthout leans to the left and has its entire existence based on bashing the right.

Do you not understand this difference?

Furthermore, the problem is not the content he linked to, it is the very fact that he linked to Truthout in the first place.

Next time we have a debate about Hillary I?ll post a link to the FreeRepublic and we?ll see how long it takes before someone on the left jumps all over me for the link.

The mere fact that stoneburner thinks that Truthout is a site worth linking to exhibits his FAR left leaning. Most of the lefties on here would have known better than to post to a site like that.

I agree with you take on the two sites. However, you have to also take into consideration WHAT the site is being used to convey. In this case, the site is being used solely as a reference point to Matt Cooper's open letter about his involvement in the Plame incident. There is no bias being propagated by Truthout in the instance.

I would equate it to you linking to a video of some Dem eating puppies on Drudge. Drudge's blatant right wing bias wouldn't diminish the content of the video. His comments on it can easily be dismissed....but the video in and of itself would still hold weight.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Let see, he served under both parties, he's given money to both parties, he publicly stated he has voted for both parties.

I'll let you make up and answer your own question. I'll also let you explain the lavish praised bush classic heaped on him. I'll also let you provide a source for your claims, besides "antimedia"

I suspect you're doing the same crap you did last time you embarrassed the human race on this issue. You are using a single questionable source and pretending as though you have thorough knowledge. Last time you claimed you read "Hubris" and then admitted you did not.

He's a diplomat, dipstick. Of course he served both parties. In that capacity he has to play both ends to the middle. Most people with the smallest bit of grey matter could have easily figured that out, which probably explains why you couldn't.

Then you complain about my source? Prove antimedia wrong. They cited information directly from the SSCI report, twit.

You remind me of that commercial where the little kid is playing soccer, doing really bad, then his dad asks him if he's OK and he replies "I was AWESOME!" Delusional. You've been owned so many times in this thread you should be covered in moving stickers by now.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You remind me of that commercial where the little kid is playing soccer, doing really bad, then his dad asks him if he's OK and he replies "I was AWESOME!" Delusional. You've been owned so many times in this thread you should be covered in moving stickers by now.

I don't even need to explain how amusing this is considering how you blew the credibility you never had on this very topic. You keep claiming "you got served!" and "you got owned!" like a 13 year old geek but can't show where.

This gets back to one of your original lies, i.e. you read Hubris. Hubris details the confusion over who at the CIA said what about VP. Most of her immediate superiors have said that they never heard her recommend Joe Wilson, one of them said she was asked if he could go or should go. Of course you're going to seize on a single biased source seizing on a single flawed source, but I am going to trust the investigation of two top notch investigators.


And since you agree that sources can be accurate even though they have a viewpoint, i'm sure you'll love this

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510210008#20051026-2

Again, I find what you do pathetic. You pretend to be absolutely sure about what you say even though you really haven't done much research on the matter. I hope you won't try filling all this crap in with a google search again Now go on "servicing" yourself with more distortions and red herrings. The right wing tried to throw everything under the sun at Joe Wilson and none of it sticks.

Any more lies about this affair need to be cleaned up?

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

He's a diplomat, dipstick. Of course he served both parties. In that capacity he has to play

here's another example of how stupid you are. I originally said, "Let see, he served under both parties, he's given money to both parties, he publicly stated he has voted for both parties. "


You focus on what? You fail to address what? These are necessary questions before getting to the final question, i.e. WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR POINT?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Bwahahaha. You complain about antimedia and then try to counter with a biased pos website run by a democratic hack like Media Matters?

It's right in the SSCI report that Plame suggested her husband for the trip:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/...-intell_chapter2-b.htm

Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

The fact that she suggested her husband is on paper, fool. Your ignorance and attempts to be a profuse apologist for Plame/Wilson gets you served in this thread yet again, sad little boy.

 

[Stoneburner]

And then you sink even further...

1. You complain about media matters? Look at what I said "And since you agree that sources can be accurate even though they have a viewpoint, i'm sure you'll love this :

So I posted a media matters link since you were posting antimedia links, make note of this, and you still say "You can't do that after criticizing anti-media!"

You lose again .

2. You keep referring to the report. I say it's incorrect or at best inconclusive. YOu say you've read Hubris. Hubris says the CIA officials that say VP recommended her husband were not even present at the meeting. Her immediate superiors, the one to whom she would make the recommendation have said SHE DID NOT or that THEY DONT REMEMBER HER DOING THIS. That analyst mentioned in the report? This is covered in Hubris and I think the One Percent Doctrine. I'm shocked you are throwing all your eggs in that basket considering how unreliable that data is. The report refers to the analysts notes and understanding. The report does not refer to cia officials that DIRECTLY CONTRADICT THIS.

You could read through the media matters material, it's very comprehensive. I suspect that report is based on a document that Cheney had based his belief VP sent Joe Wilson.

And another loss because you keep repeating yourself and find yourself clever.


3. You get an incomplete for not responding to the fact HE HAS VOTED FOR AND GIVEN MONEY TO REPUBLICANS.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

And the fact that he has voted for and given money to Republicans in the past is a meaningless strawman and a weak attempt at diverting from the fact that Joe Wilson is a proven LIAR.

What your own opinion is is meaningless and, knowing your apologistic ways in this matter, why should anyone give your opinion any credence whatsoever? It's there in black and white in the SSCI report. Plame suggested her husband for the trip. They have the documentsw to prove it. Wilson claimed she did no such thing. He lied, plain and simple.

Now get over it.

 

[Stoneburner]

And here we have another example of you avoiding the stupid crap you've said.

Chicken: Wilson told everybody VP was covert!

Me: 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.

Chicken: I don't read threads I skim through them, google up scurrilous claims, post them as though I know what I'm talking about and throw out netgeek phrases even though i'm 40 years old!

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And the fact that he has voted for and given money to Republicans in the past is a meaningless strawman and a weak attempt at diverting from the fact that Joe Wilson is a proven LIAR.

What your own opinion is is meaningless and, knowing your apologistic ways in this matter, why should anyone give your opinion any credence whatsoever? It's there in black and white in the SSCI report. Plame suggested her husband for the trip. They have the documentsw to prove it. Wilson claimed she did no such thing. He lied, plain and simple.

Now get over it.

1. It's a strawman? You are the one hellbent on proving he had a political ideology. You are the one who mentioned he was working for Kerry. You are the one who seems to think this is relevant.

2. Documented? if you are saying the SSCI report is canon and can't be contradicted, can you deny you are an idiot? If you are being more reasonable and basing it on the "notes" of an "analyst" shouldn't you address other sources that state this analyst got it wrong? That other CIA officials have contradicted the idea VP SENT joe wilson? Recommended Joe wilson? How about CIA sources that have said the CIA itself recommended Joe Wilson? Of course not! You've found your narrow talking point based on a questionable piece of evidence and are going to run with it because you are lazy.

 

[Stoneburner]

And chicken, considering the incident memorialized in my signature, it's proven you are a liar, so do you hate yourself as much as you hate joe wilson? You never even admitted your stupidity despite the fact it was so blatant.

 

[Genx87]

What is the argument about now?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Genx87
What is the argument about now?

Wilson lied and Stoner cried?

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Genx87
What is the argument about now?

Chicken's ability to read unreleased books and not provide any explanation and his related penchant for calling other people liars.

Again, if you hate wilson so much for supposedly lying, what do you do about yourself and your blatant lying?

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

It is a pity, no, that the Al Quaeda traitors Cheney, Rove and Libby, who conspired to out a CIA agent, weren't waterboarded to get the facts, as well as brought before the Hague for war crimes and genocide in Iraq.

Of course, if I had supported these puss sacks along with Bush, lo these many years, I am sure I also would be in denial. Puss sacks fester because boils aren't lanced and my ego would be way way to fragile to see myself as a puss sack enabler.

There will be, in reality however, because Libby lied and obstructed justice, no justice in this case. Treason will not be punished unless by some miracle Plame will in future win her case, because Libby couldn't remember what no person would ever forget. These worthless Americans outed a CIA agent, an act of treason, and Libby lied to protect them. For that the swine paid a tiny price the only slap our system of justice could give him.

And thanks to assholes like Nancy Pelosi, the scum are still in power.

You dissembling f@ck-heads that support this administration are truly worthless sh!t in my opinion. You have to be blind partisan assholes to support this President Prick. It is staggering to see how far from any intuitive grasp reality some of you have come, but I know how much self hate you have and how fast and furiously you run from feeling it. What you do, however with your blind fear, is enable monsters and the greatest disaster we have ever had. So what good does it do to tell you to f yourselves in the a. You already have, but along with everybody else. Denial, the disease that kills.