Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Tom Delay Finally Gone?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    And Mrs. Plame and her hubby

    The Plame Affair
    By Ben Johnson
    FrontPageMagazine.com | November 7, 2003

    THE PARTISAN CONTROVERSY over the outing of Valerie Plame, the once-covert CIA analyst and wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, seems destined to go unresolved. Although the actions of two senior administration officials may be felonious, a city that lives on leaked information seems unlikely to produce the identity of either official involved in the leak. However, the real story in this affair is the media’s overblown coverage and the Left’s hypocritical outrage.

    The media regularly presents the two “senior administration officials” who exposed Plame’s CIA employment to Robert Novak in July as felons. However, as Jack Shafer has pointed out on Slate, it’s not clear any law has been broken. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the person disclosing the covert agent’s identity must have “authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent” and must “intentionally” disclose it. Whether this official had authorized or unauthorized knowledge of Ms. Plame’s status is not clear. If the official’s knowledge was “unauthorized,” he/she apparently could not be prosecuted.

    To complicate matters, Plame may not fall under the technical legal definition of a “covert” officer.

    Further, the official must have “intentionally” exposed Plame. According to Robert Novak’s account of his interview, neither officer appeared to have premeditated the exposé. Novak recounted the event:

    During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it."

    In addition to one “offhand” remark, the second official reacted on the spur of the moment, without premeditation or intent. Thus, it would seem the officials were innocent of wrongdoing under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

    Allegations have since surfaced that the same, nameless “senior administration officials” had tried to plant Plame’s name and occupation with a half-dozen other reporters without success, before unloading the story on Novak. Novak denies the charge. Perhaps more tellingly, since this story surfaced – citing a third nameless “senior administration official” as its source – no reporter has come forward to corroborate this charge. Does it seem plausible that the average glory-seeking, leftist reporter approached by top White House brass would remain silent, refusing to 1) accept the attendant publicity that would go with making a breakthrough story; and 2) indict the Bush Administration as a gang of liars? Much less that six reporters would remain silent for nearly four months? The thought strains credulity.

    The 16 Words Connection

    The media has also claimed the inclusion of Plame’s name and CIA status “added nothing” to Robert Novak’s column of July 14, which sought an explanation why the CIA sent her husband to Niger in the first place

    The Plame controversy actually had its genesis with the “16 words controversy.” In early 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney had heard questions raised about reports that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium in Niger. He asked the CIA to look into the matter, and the Agency dispatched former Ambassador Joe Wilson to look into matters. Wilson carried out his tough interrogation over “eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people” – at poolside, on occasion – before inexplicably finding nothing. In July, the story broke that a fact-finding investigation on Niger’s yellowcake had been undertaken and concluded that Saddam never tried to purchase uranium there. Wilson promptly confessed he was the diplomat who undertook this “investigation.” Thus was President Bush’s State of the Union Address derided as “lies” by the Left – on the basis of Wilson’s African vacation!

    Wilson was an odd choice, indeed. He has keynoted before the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC), which opposed the Iraqi liberation, the sanctions against Saddam and even the no-fly zones protecting Saddam’s former victims. Wilson is also an “adjunct fellow” at the Saudi-funded Middle East Institute. His flaming leftist shilling has graced the pages of Nation, where he wrote, “The new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our worldview are implanted throughout the region.” Finally, he gave the maximum campaign contribution allowed by law to Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential campaign. (Plame gave $1,000 herself.) Indeed, Wilson worked for Gore in the 1980s. In recent years, he has supported (and formally endorsed) Sen. John Kerry.


    Bob Novak asked the predictable question: Why was Wilson, a career diplomat with no CIA background, no investigative experience and a political axe to grind against George W. Bush, sent on such a sensitive mission? (Perhaps Novak should have also asked why authorities accepted Wilson’s incompetent trip as the final word, particularly when British intelligence still claims the story is accurate.)

    According to his account, Novak asked a “senior administration official” about this seeming incoherence, when the official blurted out that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was employed the by CIA and suggested Wilson for the trip. Before reporting her name, he asked CIA officials what effect that would have, and the CIA reportedly gave him a “weak” response, stating only that such an exposure might make traveling abroad somewhat awkward for her. He appears to have acted in good faith in publishing the connection. The media’s contention that Valerie Plame’s name, connection and status “added nothing” to Novak’s story is lunacy: it explains why an unqualified leftist was placed in a position that can (and has) undermined the credibility of an administration he despises, in the middle of a war.

    Agent? Si; Secret? No!

    Moreover, as Novak himself notes, Plame’s “covert” status “was not much of a secret.” The incidentals were not secret: Her name appears in Joseph Wilson’s “Who’s Who in America” entry. Moreover, when she donation $1,000 to Al Gore, she did so under her married name, also listing a private CIA front group as her “employer.”

    More importantly, though, her CIA employment itself was no secret. Wilson himself disclosed that his wife let her cover slip around him early in their dating life. Presumably Ms. Plame has dated others, whom she also informed of her dreadfully well-guarded, super-duper-secret status in exchange for, say, an evening at the Ice Capades. Although she has a desk job investigating those who sell WMDs to terrorists (and is not a field “operative” as some misunderstood Novak to imply), she had knowledge of genuine field agents in hostile lands. Thus, her loose-lipped dating-and-mating habits could have endangered those within her orbit. Her blatant disregard of CIA secrecy undermined her own job. It seems she, not Bob Novak, was the graver danger to national security.



    For that matter, Novak was not even the only prominent conservative columnist to know of Plame’s employment. Cliff May of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has written that by early July, when Wilson first threw his tantrums about his Niger expedition, May had heard of Plame’s status “from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhanded manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.” Novak seems right on target when he writes, “It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.” Had Novak not reported her employment, this ticking time bomb was still waiting to go off.

    This hardly excuses the blasé attitude of two senior administration officials toward the identity of covert CIA analysts. Regardless of her own attitude toward her covert status and the fact that she is a desk jockey rather than a field guerrilla, the CIA certifies that it will uphold its part of the bargain to maintain the anonymity of its undercover officers. Leaking any covert CIA agent’s name to the press should be intolerable, and the perpetrators, if found, should be punished. In fact everyone from President Bush to Attorney General Ashcroft shares this consensus.

    Since the story broke, Wilson has played it for all its worth, publicly demanding the arrest of Karl Rove (though he could produce no proof that Rove was one of Novak’s unnamed sources and later withdrew his comment). Leaning upon his own infallibility, Wilson has insisted the Bush administration is lying about yellowcake, hardly a move that will inspire confidence in a wartime leader (and, as noted above, entirely unwarranted). The mass media has also proven pliable, demanding George Bush “do more” in his investigation.Yet it seems there is precious little Bush can do to find the leaks (which he is eager to do, after the embarrassment they have caused him).

    What Can Be Done?

    What more can George W. Bush do to find the leak? He could administer polygraph tests to all “senior administration officials” in the hopes of finding the perpetrator. Naturally, the weakness of this tactic is that the “lie detector test” only measures the degree of one’s nervous reaction to the interrogator’s questions. In other words, it measures how well one takes a test; innocents have failed them and perpetrators have passed them. It is unlikely to make a foolproof dragnet for errant political appointees.

    He could take the advice of former House Judiciary Committee chief counsel Jerome Zeifman and indict Robert Novak. As he points out, the Supreme Court’s 1972 Branzburg decision “The issue in these cases is whether requiring newsmen to appear and testify abridges the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment. We hold that it does not.” Bush could legally demand Novak produce the leaker’s name under oath. The flaw? Although the surprising may happen, it seems unlikely Robert Novak will answer. Journalists protect confidential source identities the way priests keep the secrets of the confessional; both believe silence is their sacred obligation. The result could be nothing more a jailed Novak.

    The President could as easily indict the reporter who broke the story that six reporters had passed on reporting this leak, as well. Clearly, the reporter is either in possession of the identities of the officials in question or is one step removed.

    Or he could indict every senior administration official and force them to deny under oath (or have them sign an affidavit to the effect) that he/she was the source of Valerie Palme’s outing. Bush should make clear that anyone taking the Fifth Amendment in court would be fired on the spot.

    However, even if all the officials are forced to testify under oath, it may as likely produce nothing save two undetected perjurers.

    The fact is, the sources may remain buried, like Deep Throat, under the eternal sands of obscurity. At least Bob Woodward has promised to reveal Deep Throat’s identity once the informant has passed away; we must awkwardly assume these officials will outlive Robert Novak. Hence, they may never be exposed, much less face legal action for their behavior (provided charges even apply).

    The Democratic Party, which has never seen a Republican administration that didn’t need a special prosecutor, is chirping its familiar message. It is not one that should be accepted, as the futility of special prosecutors generally has demonstrated. Indeed, the Justice Department has already begun widening its investigation by seeking information on officials allegedly involved discrediting Joseph Wilson in the media after the leak (an unnecessary mission if ever there were one). Apparently Justice believes these officials must be identical with the leakers. Handed over to an ineffectual, politically motivated special prosecutor, the investigation will doubtlessly veer into Cynthia McKinney territory.

    Moreover, all this concern about the sacred anonymity of covert agents (which Plame never had in the first place) seems peculiarly out of place coming from the same party that reveled in the exposes of Frank Church, Philip Agee and the Pentagon Papers. Unlike Plame, these leaks genuinely led to danger, and even death, for those exposed. Plame will simply go on the lecture circuit, write her memoirs and take her place alongside Scott Ritter and Alger Hiss in the leftist martyrology.

    We trust the Justice Department to conduct a thorough and professional investigation into the source of leaks. Nothing less than the confidentiality of this nation’s covert CIA agents is at stake. Will the Justice Department ever find the people responsible for these leaks? Doubtful. The prognosis is grim, but just because something is difficult does not mean it is not worth doing.

    Perhaps they should also investigate whether Plame’s actions violate any federal law, and prosecute all violations to the fullest extent of the law. We do not know that the White House leaks have endangered anyone yet; I wonder what we would find in Ms. Plame’s history.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=10694
    Last edited by Leader; 09 Oct 05,, 09:20.

    Comment


    • #77
      But there's more: Plame

      Joseph Wilson's Amazing Left-Wing Dreamland
      By Ben Johnson
      FrontPageMagazine.com | July 22, 2005

      AS THE SEEMINGLY ENDLESS SPIDERWEB OF LIES SPUN BY former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV unravels, the media has gone out of its way to question the credibility of…Karl Rove. Despite Rove’s demonstrable non-leak of Valerie Plame’s non-secret identity, the dogs continue to gather, hungry for a second term scandal, while the Wilsons’ blatant self-promotion erodes whatever basis they had for a story in the first place. Perhaps Joe Wilson’s two biggest whoppers were his claim to have spoken out because of his deep, non-partisan commitment to “truth,” and his inconsolable remorse that his wife’s closely guarded anonymity had become “collateral damage” in the Bush administration’s war against him. What is at risk of being lost in the media hype of Karl Rove’s “leak” is that Plame and Wilson had deep-seated ideological opposition to the Niger trip they set up, Plame apparently spiked that trip in advance, and she had long ago blown her status as a “secret” CIA agent.

      Valerie Plame – the Soros Connection

      In fact, Plame blew not only her own cover but that of a CIA front – in order to make a political donation to a leftist Democrat. The politics of non-partisan “centrist” Ambassador Wilson’s wife is perhaps best expressed by her $372 donation to the George Soros front group Americans Coming Together. Plame made her grant to ACT – the part of the “Shadow Party” entrusted with getting out John Kerry’s vote – in October 2004. However, the “undercover” agent previously used her CIA name, “Ms. Valerie E. Wilson” – and also disclosed her home address on the form – to make a $1,000 donation to Al Gore in 2000, listing her job as an “Analyst” at “Brewster-Jennings & Associates.” Thus, her hard-driving political agenda and dismissive regard for national security exposed her fellow agents to even greater risk

      The political philanthropy of Joseph C. Wilson IV similarly lines up with his wife’s leftist agenda. He also gave $2,000 to Gore in 2000 (although he took back $1,000 of that), as well as $1,000 to Sen. Ted Kennedy, and $500 to Rep. Charlie Rangel in the same election cycle. In 2002, his employment prospects dimmed while his patronage increased. Thus, he donated $1,000 to Hillary Clinton’s HILLPAC; $250 to Rep. Nick Rahall, D-WV; and $500 for Idaho Democrat Alan Blinken’s failed bid for the Senate in 2002. In 2004, he donated $2,000 to John Kerry’s presidential campaign, where he landed a job as a consultant. Wilson’s left-wing defenders cite his $1,000 donation to George W. Bush, in 2000 and the $1,500 he gave to Rep. Ed Royce, R-CA, over the course of several years as proof of his bipartisanship. Others believe Wilson was covering his bases for a federal job in 2000, and have also noted Royce sits on the Committee on International Relations

      No “Anonymity”

      Joseph Wilson literally cried crocodile tears at the exposure his left-wing political activism has brought him and his CIA operative wife. He sat, wringing his hands at the fate that could befall an agent whose identity becomes known. “Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career,” he shrieked. However, Plame’s identity was, in the words of Robert Novak, “not much of a secret.” Cliff May states he was told of Plame’s work – as a desk jockey at Langley, to which job she drove everyday – in a blasé manner, as though all Washington insiders knew of it. Perhaps they did; Plame acknowledges she “outed” herself to Joseph Wilson at roughly the time of their first kiss. Given the current dating-and-mating habits of Beltways divorcees, she’s likely kissed others, perhaps using her CIA job as foreplay at each rendezvous. As noted above, she also exposed her Agency name and cover job on her political donation to Al Gore in 2000. In fact, other national media outlets had named her as an agent before Karl Rove’s disclosure to Novak. Further, the CIA did nothing to prevent Robert Novak from printing her name in his syndicated column, indicating they did not consider the exposure vital – perhaps grudging recognition of the fact that this genie had long been out of the bottle. Still at a National Press Club meeting in 2003, standing alongside Daniel Ellsberg, Wilson choked up, breaking down as he looked his wife in the face and vowed, “If I could give you back your anonymity…I would do it in a minute.” Sorry, Val, you can’t get your virginity back.

      Since the inadvertent “leak” of her name, Wilson and Plame have comported themselves as the perfect victims all the while seeking out the brightest spotlight the media could shine on them. A week before working himself into tears with Ellsberg, Joe Wilson told NBC’s Tim Russert, “my wife…would rather chop off her right arm than say anything to the press, and she will not allow herself to be photographed.” Plame has since posed for a picture for Vanity Fair reporter (exposing both arms) and spoke with the magazine’s reporter “on a not-for-attribution basis.” In an MSNBC interview, Wilson described his wife as “obviously nonplussed at this unwanted attention brought again on our family.” Yet two weeks ago, this Mother Bear met with London Telegraph reporter Philip Sherwell at her home, allowing him to publish the names of her five-year-old twins (Samantha and Trevor) in the international media. Not even all the mainstream media have bought the Wilsons’ righteous victimology shtick. In an aside to his readers immediately before this, the MSNBC interviewer notes, “Up until recently, a tongue-in-cheek photo in Vanity Fair was the only well-known image of her. But now the Wilsons have gone public, and new photos show what the former undercover spy looks like.” Indeed, you can see Plame and Wilson, for instance, in this picture, taken at a s****y Georgetown eatery hocking Wilson’s book.

      A Pre-Emptive Strike on Pro-War Intelligence

      Like the Wilson family’s forlorn reaction to having media attention and a book deal thrust upon them, neither was the Plame/Wilson decision to go to Niger to check out the yellowcake uranium what it seemed. The duo set out to spike the Niger uranium story from the first. Upon hearing the CIA had opened an investigation into whether Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase ingredients for a doomsday device from the sub-Saharan African nation, Plame lined up her hubby for the trip, knowing his political disposition. Upon telling Wilson of his assignment, she referred to the to the Niger claim as “this crazy report.” Inspector Wilson then, by his own account, spent “eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people.” Despite his grueling interrogations, often conducted at poolside, he did not find anything whatever of value. He then went home and held his fire for months after President Bush cited the possible Niger yellowcake deal to write his op-ed. Wilson then claimed the documents Bush used to prove the yellowcake connection were forged, because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.” However, the CIA didn’t have those files until eight months after Wilson’s African vacation. Wilson sheepishly stated he may have “misspoken.”

      The Officials Who Knew Not Joseph

      “Misspoken” could designate every remark Wilson has ever made. His entire public testimony is a tear of lies.

      Although he clearly intimated Vice President Dick Cheney sent him on his fact-finding mission, Cheney said he had never heard of Wilson before his scathing op-ed on Niger. Wilson responded by telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Well, look, it's absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger. What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself” who sent him after all. OK….

      When it came to light that Wilson got his job because of his wife’s recommendation, Wilson retorted in his book, “Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip.” Instead, he avers, Plame’s “supervisors asked her to contact me.” In fact, Plame wrote a CIA higher-up that her hubby enjoyed “good relations with both the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Mines [of Niger], not to mention lots of French contacts” – surprised? – “both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” Upon reading this, Wilson responded, “I don't see it as a recommendation to send me”! Plame followed up with another suggestion that her husband get the job, which he did. In fact, she had snagged a similar trip to Niger for hubby in 1999. The fact that an apparently incompetent, apparently underqualified individual got the nod for an all-expense-paid trip to Africa due to nepotism has received no greater attention from “Good Government” liberals than, say, Bill Clinton’s appointing his wife to head up a health care task force.

      Wilson has dissembled that upon returning to the States, he wrote a report of his activities. In fact, he never laid pen to paper, instead being debriefed by others at the CIA.

      Although he claims there is no proof of Iraq’s intent to purchase yellowcake uranium, as President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union Address. the CIA interpreted Wilson's own findings to support that notion. The analysts who heard Wilson’s oral report said it “lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal.” Their written report of his activities reveals that Niger Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki told him he believed Iraq had made an overture to purchase uranium in the past. Further, the British stand by their assertion, which was the actual basis for the “16 Words” in the president’s State of the Union Address.

      Since penning his book and posing for a half-dozen pictures with his super-secret undercover wife, Joseph Wilson had faded into the recesses of the national memory where mediocrity should have permanently confined him. However, the latest investigation into Karl Rove’s non-leak has brought him roaring back onto the public stage, this time lying that Karl Rove identified his wife by name. According to Time reporter Matt Cooper’s e-mail, it was Cooper who called Rove, about another topic, and it was Cooper who abruptly changed the subject to Joe Wilson. At that point, Rove advised him not to “get too far out on” the story. Cooper’s e-mail states, the vice president had nothing to do with Wilson’s incompetent mission; “it was, KR said, wilson’s [sic.] wife, who apparently works at the agency” who worked it out. Having seen this e-mail, Wilson stood athwart reality, insisting:

      My wife's name is Mrs. Joseph Wilson. It is Mrs.Valerie Wilson. And he named her. He identified her. So that argument I don't believe stands the test of – stands the smell test.

      You could cut the irony with a knife.

      No Criminality

      Despite the current anti-Rove witchhunt, the Left has yet to present evidence of any criminal wrongdoing. According to the strictures of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, to break the law one must reveal the name of a covert agent, must know that person is a covert agent who has been abroad within the past five years, the CIA must acknowledge it is trying to conceal the identity of this agent, and the disclosure must “clearly represent a conscious and pernicious effort to identify and expose agents with the intent to impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States.” Clearly, Rove’s comments do not meet this standard. He seems not to have known her name. She never had a “deep cover” story and certainly didn’t behave as though confidentiality were her prime goal. Moreover, Wilson notes in his book that Plame (sorry, “Mrs. Joseph Wilson”) last returned from overseas in 1997, six years before Robert Novak’s column identified her as an operative.

      These facts are well-known to the media. Thirty-six “mainstream” media organizations – including the White House Correspondents – filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of Judith Miller pointing all these facts out. Yet they continue howling for Karl Rove’s head. Like George W. Bush’s non-scandal at the National Guard, this is becoming the non-story that refuses to go away.

      Wilson and Plame are run-of-the-mill, leftist climbers who have found a constituency on the Bush-hating Left willing to believe anything. They temporarily shook loose the fetters of anonymity to cast doubt upon the president of the United States. However, alternate media outlets such as talk radio and FrontPage Magazine have shined light upon the background of Wilson and Wilson, revealing their agenda and falsehoods for what they are. Despite this, there remains a portion of the far-Left committed to believing every Bush-bashing story floated in the media, even if it means entering Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Wilson’s fantasyland.Ben Johnson is Managing Editor of FrontPage Magazine and author of the book 57 Varieties of Radical Causes: Teresa Heinz Kerry's Charitable Giving.

      http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=18847

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by dalem
        Dare accepted.

        Have you listened to the actual call that Bennet's comments are taken from? Do you understand them in context? Are you informed in any way about the topic of which you type?

        Listen to the call yourself.

        (link was not working when I tried it tonight)

        Link to Bennet's statement afterwards.

        Bottom line is a guy called in and suggested a valid argument against abortion was that aborted babies do not grow up to be productive taxpayers. Bennett cautioned him against using such broad assumptions to argue specific moral issues. He used a "for instance" saying that although it is factually true that you could lower the crime rate in America by aborting every black baby, such a thing would be "morally reprehensible."

        So a clumsy statement, but hardly an advocation of the act itself.

        Now, go paint my house.

        -dale
        Heh, I was wrong too. It is defensible. Well, I guess he was wrong about everything then.

        Comment


        • #79
          Goodness me....where would Fonnicker begin with all of this updating? :)

          Could you imagine what a corrupted, one-way street America would be if there were only one party? I, for one, and am Democrats AND Republicans exist....they keep each other on their toes. ;)

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Julie
            Goodness me....where would Fonnicker begin with all of this updating? :)
            He needs to "make up for lost time." ;)

            Could you imagine what a corrupted, one-way street America would be if there were only one party?
            YES. I live in such a state!

            I, for one, and am Democrats AND Republicans exist....they keep each other on their toes. ;)
            Republicans aren't perfect either. I've said so in this thread.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Leader
              Republicans aren't perfect either. I've said so in this thread.
              I know. I'm just saying....I consider these happenings as being normal in our system of Government. If they weren't, we would really have bad problems, that would be undebatable, as well as unreparable. I look at it as kind of a virus. You have to let it flow its course. If you take medicine to stop it, it will just build up inside and make you more ill. ;)

              Comment


              • #82
                Well, I guess I will retract everything. Clearly this administration is unfairly targeted. I don't know what I was thinking. Brownie was the best man for FEMA. We've made a mistake in letting him go. It's too late for that now. Maybe we can get a champion chihuahua breeder to take his place. After all, it's only national emergency management and the lives of our citizens at stake.

                Tom Delay is a respectable man with America's best interest at heart. Carl Rove is my idol of integrity and fair play.

                Bush said that Harriet Miers was the most qualified person for the job, period. He would not have picked her otherwise. I guess it's just coincidental that she's his personal attorney.

                I'll try to remember which world leaders it's okay to assasinate, before I open my big mouth next time and spread lies. While were at it, lets make a list of world leaders that it's okay to eliminate and take them down one at a time. Or has that process already started?

                Blind loyalty is a dangerous thing. If you really believe that there is no corruption or ulterior motivations driving this administration, then God help you. God help all of us.

                Comment


                • #83
                  WHOA. Fonnicker fisked and PVVN3D!!!

                  Game. Set. Match. Ya big ole fonnickin' dork.

                  See you next year, after the GOP administers ANOTHER electoral ass-whoopin' to the Party of the Ass.

                  This is your brain on drugs:
                  Last edited by Bluesman; 15 Dec 06,, 18:14.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    This is your brain on drugs with a side of pancakes:
                    Last edited by Bluesman; 15 Dec 06,, 18:14.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Fonnicker
                      Blind loyalty is a dangerous thing.
                      So is blind cynicism.

                      The funny part is that while the keys to the Porsche and daddy's credit card are sitting on the kitchen table, hardcore anti-Bushites and hardcore Democrats are still trying to break into the shed to steal the riding lawnmower for a trip into town.

                      You want to win elections, then talk to the people of this country and ask them what they want from their leadership. It's as simple as that.

                      -dale

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Fonnicker
                        Well, I guess I will retract everything. Clearly this administration is unfairly targeted.
                        Not on everything just the things you mentioned.

                        I don't know what I was thinking.
                        I'm going to bet it was something along the lines of "Bush=bad"

                        Brownie was the best man for FEMA.
                        Straw man.

                        We've made a mistake in letting him go.
                        He resigned.

                        It's too late for that now. Maybe we can get a champion chihuahua breeder to take his place.
                        How about a couple of your friends like the Mayor of NO and the Governor of LA?

                        Tom Delay is a respectable man with America's best interest at heart.
                        Straw man. Why don't you read the thread before you post that kind of nonsense? I've already ripped Mr. Delay. If you had bothered to look, you would have seen that.

                        Carl Rove is my idol of integrity and fair play.
                        Yet another straw man. When did I say that? Nope that's right I didn't. Rove has a job. It's to win elections. I'm glad he's on our side and not yours.

                        Bush said that Harriet Miers was the most qualified person for the job, period.
                        He was wrong, period.

                        He would not have picked her otherwise. I guess it's just coincidental that she's his personal attorney.
                        You can be as cynical as you want. She's still qualified.

                        I'll try to remember which world leaders it's okay to assasinate, before I open my big mouth next time and spread lies.
                        So, in you opinion, assassination is always wrong? That's an untenable position IMO. Also, I'm not saying we should assassinate Chavez.

                        While were at it, lets make a list of world leaders that it's okay to eliminate and take them down one at a time.
                        Sure.

                        Or has that process already started?
                        Yep.

                        Blind loyalty is a dangerous thing.
                        Maybe you haven't read enough of my posts to realize this, but the idea that I'm blindly loyal to the Republicans is a joke.

                        If you really believe that there is no corruption or ulterior motivations driving this administration, then God help you.
                        I love how every argument you've made has been based on things I've never said and don't believe. Next time try arguing with what I say rather then you imaginary Republican friend. You know the one that makes arguments that you have a chance of defeating.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Bluesman
                          WHOA. Fonnicker fisked and PVVN3D!!!

                          Game. Set. Match. Ya big ole fonnickin' dork.

                          See you next year, after the GOP administers ANOTHER electoral ass-whoopin' to the Party of the Ass.

                          This is your brain on drugs:
                          ROFL

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Leader
                            I love how every argument you've made has been based on things I've never said and don't believe. Next time try arguing with what I say rather then you imaginary Republican friend.
                            Could he be related to Broken?
                            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                            I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Confed999
                              Could he be related to Broken?
                              Nah this guy's much worse IMHO. All of his "arguments" are based on uninformed nonsense and imaginary conservative positions that only a liberal could think up.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Leader
                                Nah this guy's much worse IMHO. All of his "arguments" are based on uninformed nonsense and imaginary conservative positions that only a liberal could think up.
                                I was refering more to the "reading more than is written" part. ;)
                                No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                                I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                                even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                                He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X