posted on June 22, 2004 09:08:18 AM new
crowfarm - Bush "outed" a CIA agent because her husband criticized the administration. He didn't care that this could very well end up with her death along with many of her contacts'.
I'm sure in the interest of not allowing your credibility to continue to decline around here ....you'd like to PROVE your above statements are true.
Show your 'proof' the President himself actually did what you're accusing him of.
posted on June 22, 2004 09:12:11 AM new
Linda pull your head out....it's been in the newspapers , on TV, on the radio.
Try reading something besides neo-con websites, get out of that coccoon you're hiding in.....Still don't know any humans??????
And it isn't going away because you don't believe it......
Linda mentioned a friend that I admired so very much that she "outed".
Why do you mention my name but not my friend's name??? Are you a coward? I wasn't involved in the incident and I believe that you should correct the insinuation that I was.
posted on June 22, 2004 09:27:36 AM new
crowfarm - but it'll still be true. But YOU haven't been able to prove it's anything more than a very false accusation have you? Because you have no proof.
posted on June 22, 2004 09:35:39 AM new
That case is still under investigation, Linda...in other words, it's being covered up as quickly as possible.
As you know, a couple of weeks ago, George Bush hired a personal lawyer to defend himself. The president's lawyer is reportedly James E. Sharp, a Washington attorney who also represented Iran-Contra luminary Richard V. Secord.
Cheney probably has a team of lawyers that would have made Nixon jealous.
posted on June 22, 2004 09:37:23 AM new
Linda, is the smiley face a symbol of how happy you'd be if the agent is killed because we have no proof.....Maybe you'd be delighted if they killed her children, too.
Afterall , how dare her husband criticize the present regime...doesn't she deserve to die?
Want proof? You're so good at searching the web...your whole life....why don't you do a search on "Joe Wilson CIA Bush">??
HA! You won't , you'd have to think outside your tiny, mean little box.
Too bad, Linda, but your squeaky little voice in the wilderness will not make the fact go away.
Never answered...do you know any humans?
posted on June 22, 2004 09:39:58 AM new
No, helen I'm not a coward....at least not according to my definition of what it means to be a coward.
To me being a coward is saying one wants their own country to 'admit defeat' to our enemies.
To me being a coward is being unwilling to fight for our freedoms, our security, our way of life and the freedom of others - as John Kennedy once said.
I didn't mention his name because it has been a long standing Round Table rule around here...don't know if it still is or not....but I went on a belief it still might be when I posted that....that one wasn't allowed to post links to AW/Vendio's competitors or to bring up the names of posters no longer posting here.
I'm very sure you know exactly who I was referring to....he was a Vietnam vet whose every word you thought was written in stone and he posted with three initials. HE admitted, when confronted by many that he was posting as more than one person/userid. And when I had a hard time believing it to be true, that he had used multiple id's to post here.....he admitted it.
Many have....he wasn't alone. And that was part of my point in mentioning to those who may not be aware, that YES it is possible for that to still be going on here now.
posted on June 22, 2004 09:43:15 AM new
Twelvepole, typical rightie...ignoring the direct question (why did you post my information) by asking a totally irrelevant question.
Totally Linda.
posted on June 22, 2004 09:51:24 AM new
crowfarm - Linda, is the smiley face a symbol of how happy you'd be if the agent is killed because we have no proof
crowfarm - I have many times posted my belief that Mr. Wilson 'himself' outted his own wife. And have posted his own statements when offering how I came to that conclusion. He even wants to make a movie out of this. So much for wanting to protect her privacy. lol
posted on June 22, 2004 09:56:22 AM new
Linda where's your proof Wilson outed his wife...wow can you stretch or what?Well, here's something off the internet so according to you it must be true. It's one of hundreds of articles Linda. Digrees with your wierd ideas all you want, it won't go away...
JOSH MARSHALL
Investigation? No, Bush should pick up the phone
Enough already. Enough excuse-making.
We know that two senior members of the Bush administration intentionally blew the cover of an undercover CIA officer whose job is combating weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation. And their motivation was pure politics.
The president should find out who they are, reprimand them or, preferably, fire them. But instead of being outraged, he doesn’t even seem to care.
In case you’re not familiar with what I’m talking about, let me explain.
You know about Joe Wilson, the retired diplomat who traveled to Niger at the request of the CIA last year to get to the bottom of those claims about uranium sales to Iraq. Wilson says the White House disregarded or ignored his report debunking the allegations because it weakened their case that Saddam was rapidly rebuilding his nuclear weapons program.
After he went public with his charges in a New York Times op-ed article, the White House did all it could discredit Wilson’s mission by portraying him as a small-time operator whose investigation amounted to little. That’s no surprise, I guess. We’re all adults in this town. And if Wilson was going to hold the White House to account in public, he had to expect he’d get hit back.
But they didn’t stop there. To get back at Wilson, they blew the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative specializing in tracking other countries’ efforts to acquire WMD.
How do we know this? Because two weeks ago syndicated columnist Robert Novak fingered Wilson’s wife as an “Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction” on the say-so of “two senior administration officials.” They told him Plame had suggested Wilson for the job.
Now, as it happens, it’s not even clear that this charge — that Wilson’s wife got him the gig in Niger — is true. The more relevant point, however, is that two senior administration officials publicized her identity which they almost certainly knew only because of their access to government secrets.
Consider what that means.
CIA agents work under different sorts of “cover.” There’s “official cover” — like when an agent is assigned to a U.S. embassy under the guise that he or she is a foreign service officer. Then there’s “nonofficial” cover — like when your business cards say you’re a manager at Acme Overseas Energy Corporation, but you really work for the CIA.
Plame is in that latter category.
By telling the world who she really works for, those senior administration officials not only jeopardized her career, they also compromised whatever operations she may have worked on, whatever networks she may have developed or relationships she may have cultivated. According to one highly-respected retired CIA officer who I spoke to Monday, revealing the identity of a “NOC” like Plame could literally put the lives of those who cooperated with her at risk. To reveal her identity, he told me, was “grossly irresponsible.”
Some of the White House’s spinners have been putting out the word that Plame may not that been that covert an agent after all. So maybe broadcasting her identity wasn’t such a big deal. This isn’t that easy an argument to refute since, precisely because Plame is a covert agent, it’s difficult to find out just what she does or precisely what her status is.
My sources tell me that Plame formerly worked abroad under nonofficial cover and has more recently worked stateside. Her position today may be less sensitive than it was when she worked abroad. But she still works on WMD proliferation issues. And, at a minimum, any operation that she may once have been involved in is probably now fatally compromised, any company which provided her cover is now exposed.
However that may be, though, just how deep undercover does a CIA operative have to be before blowing her cover becomes a problem?
So far, the White House’s reaction has been awfully weaselly. When pressed, Scott McClellan told reporters: “I’m saying no one was certainly given any authority to do anything of that nature, and I’ve seen no evidence to suggest there’s any truth to it.”
Frankly, I think Novak’s column gives us plenty of evidence. But who cares whether Andy Card signed off on it or not. It never should have happened at all — not least of which because it probably violated federal law. No one at the White House should think it’s okay to use the privileged information vouchsafed to them for national security reasons to settle political scores. And, after all, I thought WMD proliferation was something were concerned about.
To date, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) have called for investigations and any number of other senators have told reporters that some sort of inquiry is probably in order. But let’s be honest. We don’t really need any investigations, with all their depositions and fancy lawyers and public grandstanding. If the president wanted to, he could wrap this up with a few quick phone calls. So why doesn’t he?
A few years back, this town sped into paroxysms over claims that the Clinton White House had used FBI files to smear its critics. Even according to Ken Starr, those charges turned out to be baseless. This outrage, on the other hand, actually happened. And, when you think about it, that sort of makes it worse.
Josh Marshall is editor of talkingpointsmemo.com. His column
appears in The Hill each Wednesday.
posted on June 22, 2004 10:00:13 AM new
You left out the most important parts of my comment, linda, so I'll repost it.
That case is still under investigation, Linda...in other words, it's being covered up as quickly as possible.
As you know, a couple of weeks ago, George Bush hired a personal lawyer to defend himself. The president's lawyer is reportedly James E. Sharp, a Washington attorney who also represented Iran-Contra luminary Richard V. Secord.
Cheney probably has a team of lawyers that would have made Nixon jealous.
posted on June 22, 2004 10:01:12 AM new
And only YOU, Linda, would put that inane
"LOL" on anything so serious.
But murdering your opponent has never been a problem for Republicans.
posted on June 22, 2004 10:07:02 AM new
I'd sure hate to have you on any jury of mine, crowfarm. I think you've lost sight of how our judicial system works. Heck you don't need to see *proof* of any wrong doing....if you just SUSPECT it...then that makes it a fact. That would be funny if it weren't so sad.
You know....our justice system operates on 'innocent UNTIL proven guilty'. *Not guilty of any false accusation anyone makes until they can disprove it*.
"I didn't mention his name because it has been a long standing Round Table rule around here...don't know if it still is or not....but I went on a belief it still might be when I posted that....that one wasn't allowed to post links to AW/Vendio's competitors or to bring up the names of posters no longer posting here."
But then you have absolutely NO scruples about identifying him so that anyone on this or any other board reading here would know, leaving him without notice of such an unsubstantiated charge being made by you -- again without proof. What a miserable and tacky tactic but not unusual in your case.
posted on June 22, 2004 10:13:19 AM new
helen - We'll see when this President's next 4+ years are over, just who needed lawyers the most....clinton or Bush.
He and hillary had so many laywers defending them, on so many different issues....they couldn't even pay their lawyers bills.
But I'm sure that their character is such that now that they're 'in the money' from their book sales....they'll be able to reimburse their lawyers now. [not]
posted on June 22, 2004 10:25:10 AM new
Linda says,"I'd sure hate to have you on any jury of mine, crowfarm. I think you've lost sight of how our judicial system works. Heck you don't need to see *proof* of any wrong doing....if you just SUSPECT it...then that makes it a fact. That would be funny if it weren't so sad. "
Note: Above quote is a diverionary tactic to avoid discussion.
SEE, Linda's cut and pastes are always "true" but anyone else's are "not Proven".
Where oh where Linda......
Where's your proof that Wilson outed his wife????????????
It's just your opinion but you said it.
But I knew you wouldn't believe anything outside your mean teeny little box....even general knowledge that the information came from the White House.
So, we shouldn't discuss anything until after the trial????Where the hell have you been all your life?
And as to your gruelingly boring "LOLs" my friends and I constantly LOL at your posts....when I first told them about you they thought I was joking! So I had to proved to them there actually is a person like you...they still can't believe it but feel very sorry for you if you're
real. They say you're just very lonely and I should be kind to you but, sorry, I never feel sorry for mean,little people.
How's that old saying go helen...be care what you ask for, you just might get it.
You call me a coward for not saying who it was...then you blame me for having absolutely NO scruples about identifying him.
Which, by the way, I didn't name him. THEN you proceed to try and make me give proof, which I have, that my statements are true.....which would only mean he would be identified by name....outted.
You "may fool people some of the people, some of the time" with these behaviors....but not me. I've had your number for a very long time.
posted on June 22, 2004 10:35:05 AM new
crowfarm - I find it ironic that you won't provide proof of your statements but for some odd reason hold the belief I should show mine. YOU have no proof this President is involved in any of the two accusation you have made against him.
Until you have the ability to post support for your claims....your credibility is shot.
There's the difference between a scrupulous and an unscrupulous comment, linda. YOU made the unsubstantiated charge and then YOU made it perfectly clear who the poster was by bringing my name into the comment along with YOUR list of identifying characteristics of this individual poster...everything but substantiation of your remark which you can't make because as you say, Vendio won't allow that. Good Grief! Vendio should make such tactics against community guidelines.
posted on June 22, 2004 11:07:14 AM new
Linda says,"crowfarm - I find it ironic that you won't provide proof of your statements but for some odd reason hold the belief I should show mine. YOU have no proof this President is involved in any of the two accusation you have made against him.
Until you have the ability to post support for your claims....your credibility is shot. "
BUT Linda can say Wilson outed his wife and has nothing to support her claim...I guess Linda, YOUR credibility must be shot, too!
And, NEWS FLASH! I don't worry about my credibility with YOU!
Now, my friends saw this thread and LOL'd their butts off at you BUT then rounded on me and told me I was so nasty to you that I sounded like a Republican! Leave it to good friends to point out the errors of your ways!!!
So Linda, I apologize for anything nasty I said to you and not just because my friends got on my case.
posted on June 22, 2004 11:29:27 AM new
Yes, helen, I understand...in YOUR mind YOUR confusion [asking for and then blaming because I gave it] is my fault.
I also think you may be having short-term memory
problems. [Well...actually long term ones too - since you've been saying the same thing for a long period of time].... because you continually post that you are NOT responding to my posts anymore...ever...and then you continue to do so.
------------
crowfarm - What I'm saying is that you, unlike myself, have posted MANY false accusations/statements that you have either been unwilling or unable to support.
I'm only willing to provide supportive proof of my statements to those who have earned my respect because they have acted in a reciprocal manner with me....and I judge their own credibility means something. That does not apply in your case.
posted on June 22, 2004 11:37:04 AM new
Gee, I don't know why but the words "Pompous Ass" popped into my mind on reading your last post, Linda.
But my friends said I should be nice to those less fortunate so I won't say anything.
Except, You'll never answer the question, "Why are Linda's cut and pastes true and mine aren't???
And, Do you know any humans?
And you stated that you'd hate to have me on your jury....well, if I was the judge I'd sentence you to solitary confinement so you could spend time with all your friends.
Good Bye, my friends are pulling me away from the computer and lecturing me......
posted on June 22, 2004 11:39:08 AM new
Helen, your going to buy Clintons book? Wasn't it you that said you could get it at the library.... for free, well to borrow anyway..Have fun, is Clinton in your area to autograph it? If so, think of how much it would go for on ebay
posted on June 22, 2004 11:41:47 AM newFor some reason I thought this thread was about Clintons new book....
Not too much to discuss there....unless one is most interested in reading about his childhood. From what I've read he pretty much glosses over the controversial parts of his administration and his 'parting days' pardons to people like Rich....whose wife was a HUGE campaign supporter of his. And it does appear to me that while he mentions his impeachment he wears it as a badge of honor, again from what I'm hearing.
-------------------
There....back on topic.
-------------------
Yes.... many threads here start one way and then go off in a different direction, don't they? Maybe we really do have the need for a 'hall monitor' to gently remind us when the threads first start going off topic.
Re-elect President Bush!!
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
....you'd like to PROVE your above statements are true.
