Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
How Democrats are lying
Author Message
Road Warrior Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 417
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #1
 
The Clare Luce Democrats
How they're lying about "he lied us into war."

<a href='http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007495' target='_blank'>Opinion Journal from the WSJ</a>

Thursday, November 3, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Harry Reid pulled the Senate into closed session Tuesday, claiming that "The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq." But the Minority Leader's statement was as demonstrably false as his stunt was transparently political.

What Mr. Reid's pose is "really all about" is the emergence of the Clare Boothe Luce Democrats. We're referring to the 20th-century playwright, and wife of Time magazine founder Henry Luce, who was most famous for declaring that Franklin D. Roosevelt had "lied us into war" with the Nazis and Tojo. So intense was the hatred of FDR among some Republicans that they held fast to this slander for years, with many taking their paranoia to their graves.

We are now seeing the spectacle of Bush-hating Democrats adopting a similar slander against the current President regarding the Iraq War. The indictment by Patrick Fitzgerald of Vice Presidential aide I. Lewis Libby has become their latest opening to promote this fiction, notwithstanding the mountains of contrary evidence. To wit:

• In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of intelligence gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role, "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction,".

• The Butler Report, published by the British in July 2004, similarly found no evidence of "deliberate distortion," although it too found much to criticize in the quality of prewar intelligence.

• The March 2005 Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence was equally categorical, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."

• Finally, last Friday, there was Mr. Fitzgerald: "This indictment's not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are--have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel."

In short, everyone who has looked into the question of whether the Bush Administration lied about intelligence, distorted intelligence, or pressured intelligence agencies to produce assessments that would support a supposedly pre-baked decision to invade Iraq has come up with the same answer: No, no, no and no.

Everyone, that is, except Joseph Wilson IV. He first became the Democrats' darling in July 2003, when he published an op-ed claiming he'd debunked Mr. Bush's "16 words" on Iraqi attempts to purchase African yellowcake and that the Administration had distorted the evidence about Saddam's weapons programs to fit its agenda. This Wilson tale fit the "lied us into war" narrative so well that he was adopted by the John Kerry presidential campaign.

Only to be dropped faster than a Paris Hilton boyfriend after the Senate Intelligence and Butler reports were published. Those reports clearly showed that, while Saddam had probably not purchased yellowcake from Niger, the dictator had almost certainly tried--and that Mr. Wilson's own briefing of the CIA after his mission supported that conclusion. Mr. Wilson somehow omitted that fact from his public accounts at the time.

He also omitted to explain why the CIA had sent him to Niger: His wife, who worked at the CIA, had suggested his name for the trip, a fact Mr. Wilson also denied, but which has also since been proven. In other words, the only real support there has ever been for the "Bush lied" storyline came from a man who is himself a demonstrable liar. If we were Nick Kristof and the other writers who reported Mr. Wilson's facts as gospel, we'd be apologizing to our readers.

Yet, incredibly, Mr. Wilson has once again become the Democrats' favorite mascot because they want him as a prop for their "lied us into war" revival campaign. They must think the media are stupid, because so many Democrats are themselves on the record in the pre-Iraq War period as declaring that Saddam had WMD. Here is Al Gore from September 23, 2002, amid the Congressional debate over going to war: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Or Hillary Rodham Clinton, from October 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . ."

Or Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who is now leading the "Bush lied" brigades (from October 10, 2002): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . .We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." If Mr. Bush is a liar, what does the use of the phrase "unmistakable evidence" make Mr. Rockefeller? A fool?

The scandal here isn't what happened before the war. The scandal is that the same Democrats who saw the same intelligence that Mr. Bush saw, who drew the same conclusions, and who voted to go to war are now using the difficulties we've encountered in that conflict as an excuse to rewrite history.

Are Republicans really going to let them get away with it?


<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>(Emphasis added -- RW)</span>
11-03-2005 10:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Guest
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #2
 
:roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol:
11-03-2005 11:02 AM
Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #3
 
Oddball Wrote::roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol:
Translation, "Damn, now I'm going to have to disappear again until the next scandal is manufactured. F'n media has been hijacked!"
11-03-2005 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blah Offline
Just doing the splits
*

Posts: 11,539
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 164
I Root For: Stretching
Location: Just outside Uranus

CrappiesBlazerTalk AwardDonatorsSkunkworksSurvivor Runner-up
Post: #4
 
DrTorch Wrote:
Oddball Wrote::roflol:&nbsp; :roflol:&nbsp; :roflol:&nbsp; :roflol:&nbsp; :roflol:&nbsp; :roflol:
Translation, "Damn, now I'm going to have to disappear again until the next scandal is manufactured. F'n media has been hijacked!"
:roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol:

I don't think that is necessarily true. Oddball has shown the ability to manufacture his own scandals with just a little help from his "Move On" buddies.
11-03-2005 12:30 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #5
 
You get one warning. One more comment like that and you will be singing your song elsewhere.

Translate that.
11-03-2005 12:36 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Lethemeul Offline
Fancy Pants
*

Posts: 3,591
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Pirates!
Location: Boogie all the time

NCAAbbs LUGDonatorsFolding@NCAAbbs
Post: #6
 
Oddball Wrote:On 3, everyone circle jerk! :roflol:

Translate that.
"I can't come up with a rational, well-thought out argument so I'm gonna call conservatives names and insult them."

How'd I do?
11-03-2005 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Guest
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #7
 
DrTorch Wrote:
Oddball Wrote::roflol:&nbsp; :roflol:&nbsp; :roflol:&nbsp; :roflol:&nbsp; :roflol:&nbsp; :roflol:
Translation, "Damn, now I'm going to have to disappear again until the next scandal is manufactured. F'n media has been hijacked!"
When I disappear again, it will be due to getting bored from laughing at you fools and your convoluted "reasons" for still supporting a discredited and traitorous regime. Remind me again, where are the WMD's? While you're at it, how about divulging the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden that your fearless leader promised to catch "dead or alive" many years ago? Please try and answer these questions without using Clinton's name even once.
11-03-2005 12:56 PM
Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #8
 
Oddball Wrote:
DrTorch Wrote:
Oddball Wrote::roflol:  :roflol:  :roflol:  :roflol:  :roflol:  :roflol:
Translation, "Damn, now I'm going to have to disappear again until the next scandal is manufactured. F'n media has been hijacked!"
When I disappear again, it will be due to getting bored from laughing at you fools and your convoluted "reasons" for still supporting a discredited and traitorous regime.
Traitorous? If you wanted a seroius discussion you wouldn't start here.

Quote:Please try and answer these questions without using Clinton's name even once.

Ok, I'll stop at 'Sandy Berger'.
11-03-2005 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gruehls
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #9
 
Oddball Wrote:When I disappear again, it will be due to getting bored from laughing at you fools and your convoluted "reasons" for still supporting a discredited and traitorous regime.

nobody cares what the reason is; just disappear again.



Quote:Remind me again, where are the WMD's? While you're at it, how about divulging the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden that your fearless leader promised to catch "dead or alive" many years ago? Please try and answer these questions without using Clinton's name even once.

right. as if serious discussion was ever a part of your annoying schtick.

heck, the only thing you ever got right was the "lord flaming asshat" self-description.
11-03-2005 02:17 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #10
 
DrTorch Wrote:
Oddball Wrote:
DrTorch Wrote:
Oddball Wrote::roflol:&nbsp; :roflol:&nbsp; :roflol:&nbsp; :roflol:&nbsp; :roflol:&nbsp; :roflol:
Translation, "Damn, now I'm going to have to disappear again until the next scandal is manufactured. F'n media has been hijacked!"
When I disappear again, it will be due to getting bored from laughing at you fools and your convoluted "reasons" for still supporting a discredited and traitorous regime.
Traitorous? If you wanted a seroius discussion you wouldn't start here.

Quote:Please try and answer these questions without using Clinton's name even once.

Ok, I'll stop at 'Sandy Berger'.
If I wanted a serious discussion, I certainly wouldn't start HERE! Endangering this nation's covert agents is indeed traitorous. Anyone who doubts that this is what happened is an idiot. The only real question is what this makes someone who still supports these traitors.
11-03-2005 02:24 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #11
 
gruehls Wrote:
Oddball Wrote:When I disappear again, it will be due to getting bored from laughing at you fools and your convoluted "reasons" for still supporting a discredited and traitorous regime.

nobody cares what the reason is; just disappear again.



Quote:Remind me again, where are the WMD's? While you're at it, how about divulging the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden that your fearless leader promised to catch "dead or alive" many years ago? Please try and answer these questions without using Clinton's name even once.

right. as if serious discussion was ever a part of your annoying schtick.

heck, the only thing you ever got right was the "lord flaming asshat" self-description.
Is the earth still flat?
11-03-2005 02:25 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #12
 
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Just a few examples of people who know of what they speak.
11-03-2005 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #13
 
Oddball Wrote:Endangering this nation's covert agents is indeed traitorous. Anyone who doubts that this is what happened is an idiot. The only real question is what this makes someone who still supports these traitors.
I guess that includes Fitzgerald since he didn't indict on it.

Plame wasn't covert at the time of her outing.

But then that's just another fact you'll ignore cause the moment you start dealing in them you don't have a leg to stand on. :rolleyes:
11-03-2005 03:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blah Offline
Just doing the splits
*

Posts: 11,539
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 164
I Root For: Stretching
Location: Just outside Uranus

CrappiesBlazerTalk AwardDonatorsSkunkworksSurvivor Runner-up
Post: #14
 
Ninerfan1 Wrote:
Oddball Wrote:Endangering this nation's covert agents is indeed traitorous. Anyone who doubts that this is what happened is an idiot. The only real question is what this makes someone who still supports these traitors.
I guess that includes Fitzgerald since he didn't indict on it.

Plame wasn't covert at the time of her outing.

But then that's just another fact you'll ignore cause the moment you start dealing in them you don't have a leg to stand on. :rolleyes:
How true....

Also, nice post rickheel.

I'm sure it will induce another snappy one-liner, devoid of any real substance.

Let me save some time by providing a multiple choice list.....

A. George Bush is dumb.

B. I know you are, but what am I.

C. Fox News is the devil.

D. Where am I and how did I get here, pookie?
11-03-2005 03:21 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #15
 
Ninerfan1 Wrote:
Oddball Wrote:Endangering this nation's covert agents is indeed traitorous. Anyone who doubts that this is what happened is an idiot. The only real question is what this makes someone who still supports these traitors.
I guess that includes Fitzgerald since he didn't indict on it.

Plame wasn't covert at the time of her outing.

But then that's just another fact you'll ignore cause the moment you start dealing in them you don't have a leg to stand on. :rolleyes:
Fitzgerald isn't done. He stated in his press conference that there was no way to indict at this time due to the degree of lying and covering up done by this administration. Plame's identity was classified information. Revealing her identity put many other agents at risk. That is traitorous no matter how you flat-earthers spin it and circle jerk over it.

What O'Reilly didn't tell you:

[quote]e.
Joseph Wilson (“Wilson
11-03-2005 03:34 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #16
 
blah Wrote:
Ninerfan1 Wrote:
Oddball Wrote:Endangering this nation's covert agents is indeed traitorous. Anyone who doubts that this is what happened is an idiot. The only real question is what this makes someone who still supports these traitors.
I guess that includes Fitzgerald since he didn't indict on it.

Plame wasn't covert at the time of her outing.

But then that's just another fact you'll ignore cause the moment you start dealing in them you don't have a leg to stand on. :rolleyes:
How true....

Also, nice post rickheel.

I'm sure it will induce another snappy one-liner, devoid of any real substance.

Let me save some time by providing a multiple choice list.....

A. George Bush is dumb.

B. I know you are, but what am I.

C. Fox News is the devil.

D. Where am I and how did I get here, pookie?
You really aren't very good at this, Pookie. 05-nono
11-03-2005 03:35 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Road Warrior Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 417
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #17
 
Quote:When I disappear again, it will be due to getting bored from laughing at you fools


Quote:Anyone who doubts that this is what happened is an idiot.


Quote:no matter how you flat-earthers spin it and circle jerk over it.


Quote:You really aren't very good at this, Pookie.


'When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser'....Socrates
11-03-2005 03:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blah Offline
Just doing the splits
*

Posts: 11,539
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 164
I Root For: Stretching
Location: Just outside Uranus

CrappiesBlazerTalk AwardDonatorsSkunkworksSurvivor Runner-up
Post: #18
 
Oddball Wrote:
Ninerfan1 Wrote:[quote="Oddball"] Endangering this nation's covert agents is indeed traitorous. Anyone who doubts that this is what happened is an idiot. The only real question is what this makes someone who still supports these traitors.
I guess that includes Fitzgerald since he didn't indict on it.

Plame wasn't covert at the time of her outing.

But then that's just another fact you'll ignore cause the moment you start dealing in them you don't have a leg to stand on. :rolleyes:
Fitzgerald isn't done. He stated in his press conference that there was no way to indict at this time due to the degree of lying and covering up done by this administration. Plame's identity was classified information. Revealing her identity put many other agents at risk. That is traitorous no matter how you flat-earthers spin it and circle jerk over it.

What O'Reilly didn't tell you:

[quote]e.
Joseph Wilson (“Wilson
11-03-2005 03:48 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #19
 
blah Wrote:
Oddball Wrote:[quote="Ninerfan1"] [quote="Oddball"] Endangering this nation's covert agents is indeed traitorous. Anyone who doubts that this is what happened is an idiot. The only real question is what this makes someone who still supports these traitors.
I guess that includes Fitzgerald since he didn't indict on it.

Plame wasn't covert at the time of her outing.

But then that's just another fact you'll ignore cause the moment you start dealing in them you don't have a leg to stand on. :rolleyes:
Fitzgerald isn't done. He stated in his press conference that there was no way to indict at this time due to the degree of lying and covering up done by this administration. Plame's identity was classified information. Revealing her identity put many other agents at risk. That is traitorous no matter how you flat-earthers spin it and circle jerk over it.

What O'Reilly didn't tell you:

[quote]e.
Joseph Wilson (“Wilson
11-03-2005 03:55 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Road Warrior Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 417
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #20
 
[quote]f.
Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson
11-03-2005 04:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.