stupid, evil, and corrupt
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 22:34
VIEWED: 5904
PAGE 8 of 13
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor- to back up my claim: You'd give up civil rights. You have said so many time over. And in doing so, you'd be rushing headlong into the dictatorial one-world government that DT so greatly fears.
EDITED TO ADD: Oh yeah, not a SINGLE link in your Plamegate posts either.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
I have never said any such thing. Sorry, you're wrong. Must have me confused w/ someone else.
What Plamegate posts was that again? Is your understanding of this issue , or any issue, based solely on the posting of a link ? Armitage fessed up, Joe Wilson lied. There's not much more to discuss here.
But since you won't take my word for it, here's your precious link !
Quote:See ? ANYYONE can play the copy/paste game. I'm sure you're all the more convinced now that I've posted a 2 + yr old Christopher Hitchens article instead of speaking in my own words. Point is, the whole PlameGate stuff was a complete fabrication by them to discredit Bush. It was known then as it's known now. There is no case. Plame wasn't even a covert op, so why Fitzgereald is still keeping this investigation is beyond comprehension. There's nothing there.
Plame's Lame Game
What Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife forgot to tell us about the yellow-cake scandal.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 12:27 PM ET
The Senate's report on intelligence failures would appear to confirm that Valerie Plame did recommend her husband Joseph Wilson for the mission to Niger. In a memo written to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations, she asserted that Wilson had "good relations with both the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Mines [of Niger], not to mention lots of French contacts." This makes a poor fit with Wilson's claim, in a recent book, that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." (It incidentally seems that she was able to recommend him for the trip because of the contacts he'd made on an earlier trip, for which she had also proposed him.)
Wilson's earlier claim to the Washington Post that, in the CIA reports and documents on the Niger case, "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong," was also false, according to the Senate report. The relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after he made his trip. Wilson now lamely says he may have "misspoken" on this. (See Susan Schmidt's article in the July 10 Washington Post.) http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor: posting links allows people to read in detail the information that YOU chose to exerpt here. Exerpts are necessarily incomplete and out of context. Also, if we know the source we have some indication of the author's bias, based on previous work and sources of funding. (Everyone has a bias).
But when you post something like "Plame wasn't even a covert op"... WHOA! That's not what the CIA said! That's why they asked for an investigation, not Justice. So where do you get THAT little gem? Hannity? Limbaugh? O'Reilly? Better post THAT link.
And I've love to follow your reasoning, but you won't do THAT either. When pressed with questions or challenges or self-contradictions you just kind of drift away.
To clean up the tangle of edits that I posted, here is you giving up your civil rights, in lieanr order:
Quote:
Auraptor- to back up my claim: You'd give up civil rights. You have said so many time over. And in doing so, you'd be rushing headlong into the dictatorial one-world government that DT so greatly fears.- SignyM
I have never said any such thing. Sorry, you're wrong. Must have me confused w/ someone else. -Auraptor
Here's one: "Warrant, no warrant, I still support what The President is doing in regards to fighting terrorism and ' collecting the dots ', before another attack."
fireflyfan.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=17189 - Signy
Now, see how useful links can be?
So stand up like a man for your opinions.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor: Okay, DON'T stand up like a man for your opinions. Just be prepared to discuss them and back them up.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But when you post something like "Plame wasn't even a covert op"... WHOA! That's not what the CIA said! That's why they asked for an investigation, not Justice. So where do you get THAT little gem? Hannity? Limbaugh? O'Reilly? Better post THAT link.
She wasn't a covert op. The CIA has never said anything on the matter, one way or the other.
Quote:
"Warrant, no warrant, I still support what The President is doing in regards to fighting terrorism and ' collecting the dots ', before another attack."
Taken out of context, you've made your case. The POINT was the fuss over gathering intel from KNOWN TERRORIST. I've given up zero of my rights, sorry. Your claim is invalid. Try again.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That link works both ways, friend. People besides you and me can easily go back and review the entire discusison aside from what you or I choose to represent.
And what they will see is that the point was that if they were "known" or even suspected terrorists, the Bush Administration could EASILY get a FISA surveillance order if required. You don't care whether they get a warrant or not, even if required by law. That's giving up your civil rights.
As for Plame's CIA status: You're right, the CIA would never claim she was a NOC. But people who worked with her said this:
Quote:You can find the original article yourself. Google is your friend.
Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And what they will see is that the point was that if they were "known" or even suspected terrorists, the Bush Administration could EASILY get a FISA surveillance order if required. You don't care whether they get a warrant or not, even if required by law. That's giving up your civil rights.
It's not against the law, and there in lies the flaw in your argument. The President is under no obligation TO get a FISA order. In no way does this take away any of my civil rights.
As for Plame, there's no indication that she was an active covert op at the time her name came up, FROM ARMITAGE. To the best of my knowledge, it had been years since she held that status. If her friends were so eager to willingly discuss her past status, then I guess it wasn't all that much of a secret.
Regardless, there's nothing to the fairy tale that releasing her name was some revenge tactic by the White House, or Rove, or Cheney in the least. This story is moot.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AU:
Point is you can say anything, and as DT has shown its really easy if you don't feel the need to back anything up with evidence outside of your own words.
For instance I could say:
George Bush is an Alien invader, head of a master race who wish to turn the Earth into a radioactive waste ground and sell it as spacecraft fuel.
Would you consider this worthy of debate? I think not, but why should we take you at your word that this is nonsense if you are unwilling to back up your claims with data. Words are cheap on the internet, the words of someone with no data to backup their claims even cheaper.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor: providing "context" for your comments, here are MORE of your comments from the same thread: -
Quote:Then you and Bush are ridiculous together.
Where do you get that idea, unless you're paranoid? Under no circumstances am I "OK" with the Gov't snooping me or any average Joe. But that isn't what they're doing. When they say they're monitoring KNOWN terrorist operatives, I have no delusions in thinking that means me. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that is what the Gov't is wasting its time w/ random searches of any/every American. That'd be ridiculous.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor: providing "context" for your comments, here are MORE of your comments from the same thread: -Quote:Then you and Bush are ridiculous together.
Where do you get that idea, unless you're paranoid? Under no circumstances am I "OK" with the Gov't snooping me or any average Joe. But that isn't what they're doing. When they say they're monitoring KNOWN terrorist operatives, I have no delusions in thinking that means me. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that is what the Gov't is wasting its time w/ random searches of any/every American. That'd be ridiculous.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
You post is a complete waste of time and space. Nothing you cited in any way contradicts what I said.
* Nor is there any evidence to suggest that is what the Gov't is wasting its time w/ random searches of any/every American. That'd be ridiculous *
Why did you repost that line ? There indeed was no plan which the Gov't was 'randomly ' searching private US citizens. That doesn't in the least bit advance your cause or make your case. All you did was post what I accurately stated, and then said ' see? '. No, I don't see, nor does anyone else. Stop wasting time on here if you've got nothing to say.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Point is you can say anything, and as DT has shown its really easy if you don't feel the need to back anything up with evidence outside of your own words.
For instance I could say:
George Bush is an Alien invader, head of a master race who wish to turn the Earth into a radioactive waste ground and sell it as spacecraft fuel.
Would you consider this worthy of debate? I think not, but why should we take you at your word that this is nonsense if you are unwilling to back up your claims with data. Words are cheap on the internet, the words of someone with no data to backup their claims even cheaper.
The burden of proof lies upon those making the claims. I have been willing to back up my cliams, you've just not been interested in what I say. Sig says I'm willing to trade my freedoms for security. That is a false statement. He offers my own words, and then the wrong conclusion that because I say Bush is right in something, that means I'm giving up my freedoms. Not one of my freedoms have been given up. It comes down to how each of us want to frame the issue. You don't like Bush, so you see what ever he does as wrong, and that he's 'evil' in his methodology in dealing w/ Islamo-fascism. I for one see the wisdom in his very pragmatic approach to beating Islamo-terrorists, and see there's nothing what so ever illegal here. No threats to my freedoms.
So, nice try.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME