or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › This is REAL treason Ann Coulter: Someone is going to Jail or worse!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

This is REAL treason Ann Coulter: Someone is going to Jail or worse! - Page 5

post #161 of 498
Thread Starter 
Quote:
1. Andrea Mitchell
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?
6. ?


Someone at Faux. (Not that they would tell.)


Looks like in the press conference, JUNIOR did not answer the question "if he had talked to karl rove about this" directly..

Instead he responded,

"I don't know of anyone in my adminisration that leaked classified information"

A non-denial, denial.

Hmm... Define sexual relations...

Ignorance is Bliss eh Mr. "President"?
post #162 of 498
I mean there is a connection in the fact that the administration had Wilson's report before the state of the union... so they had plenty of skepticism... if not evidence against the Uranium from Africa claim... but the speech writers were careful to say Africa rather than Niger... because they already had at least 3 reports that disputed any Nigerian link to Iraq...

The Bush White House is always careful to have just enough wiggle room incase they get called out on what they say... what's the term?

feasible deniability? that's not it...hmmm... anyway.

It is obvious that the Bushies wanted to make the case for going to war... and going soon... wanting to generate a sense urgency... problem is they just didn't have the solid intelligence they needed.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #163 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I mean there is a connection in the fact that the administration had Wilson's report before the state of the union... so they had plenty of skepticism... if not evidence against the Uranium from Africa claim... but the speech writers were careful to say Africa rather than Niger... because they already had at least 3 reports that disputed any Nigerian link to Iraq...

The Bush White House is always careful to have just enough wiggle room incase they get called out on what they say... what's the term?

feasible deniability? that's not it...hmmm... anyway.

It is obvious that the Bushies wanted to make the case for going to war... and going soon... wanting to generate a sense urgency... problem is they just didn't have the solid intelligence they needed.

Plausible Deniability.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #164 of 498
Thanks! I was close.

lookee... it's Karlito!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...170/5ffws.html

The focus on Rove brought an odd twist to Bush's travels. When the president boarded Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington, he walked up the steps and waved Ñ and not a single camera followed. He looked momentarily perplexed. All lenses were trained on Rove at the bottom of the steps.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...pe/cia_leak_19
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #165 of 498
Thread Starter 
BACKPEDAL TO THE FUTURE!!!

On Crossfire today, Novak is now claiming that when he used the term "operative" in the july article, it was a "mistake' and that he uses "operative" for any type of government official..

46 years of experince eh?

Bob's your Uncle! And your Uncle is a LIAR!
post #166 of 498
Thread Starter 
Jame Carville just claimed that: Rove worked for Ashcroft and was intrumental in getting him elected.

Links?
post #167 of 498
Next thing you know, he'll say he didn't mean Joseph Wilson but:

post #168 of 498
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=3...Administration

there's a link to hear Wilson on NPR...
his wife's status was not widely known...
he says the circle of people who knew was maybe a dozen... thier friend's and colleagues didn't even know.

And if you listen to how he answers the questions about his wife... it's clear he's not going to say she's an agent... that would be breaking the law.

I think Novak is finding that being a shill for the White House can suck.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #169 of 498
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I think Novak is finding that being a shill for the White House can suck.

But that's just it. Today on Crossfire he upped the level of being a Bush Apologist. Its obscene.
post #170 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
BACKPEDAL TO THE FUTURE!!!

On Crossfire today, Novak is now claiming that when he used the term "operative" in the july article, it was a "mistake' and that he uses "operative" for any type of government official..

46 years of experince eh?

Bob's your Uncle! And your Uncle is a LIAR!

Does anyone have access to any form of database that would contain his articles? I'm curious to know if his use of the word 'operative' does in fact follow his explanation.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #171 of 498
Thread Starter 
Bob seems to being saying is that "its just that word i use it all the time" as audiopolution mentions a look into his article database would verify that or not.

here is part of a description from the paula zahn interview with joe wilson last night

Quote:
ZAHN: You want to answer that question? Is this Bush-bashing on your part?

WILSON: Let me make a couple of points about that.

First of all, Novak also said that I was a Clinton appointee. In actual fact, my first political appointee was as ambassador. And I was appointed by George H.W. Bush, the first President Bush. So I really am apolitical in all of this.

Secondly, somebody with Novak's self-described 46 years experience will know the difference between operative and analyst. And his report clearly says -- his article says operative.

ZAHN: So what does that mean?

WILSON: That means that I think that he knew and he was told that she was a CIA operative, which means that they come under the branch of the CIA that deals with clandestine operations.

ZAHN: So you're basically saying there's no doubt in your mind that this was a leak, when in fact he said, in the course of interviewing a senior White House official, that is what he was told, and your wife's -- not her name at that point, but at least her official capacity was shared with him?

WILSON: Bob Novak called me before he went to print with the report. And he said, a CIA source had told him that my wife was an operative. He was trying to get a second source. He couldn't get a second source. Could I confirm that? I said no.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/29/pzn.00.html

What strikes me is that Novak used the term operative there. He was discussing the CIA. He has 46 years expericence and he "just uses that word"? He was trying to "second source" the very word "Operative"

I don't buy it or him.


But novak is not the message here. He was just a mousey messenger. The real story is just how much of our national security was comprised and how many lives (including the lives of all americans) where put in danger because of an act of political revenge from the within the white house.
post #172 of 498
I think it's pretty widly known that Rove worked for Ashcroft...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...35309?v=glance

That probably has the info you're looking for...

http://chblue.com/artman/publish/article_2855.shtml

"Ashcroft was not an accidental choice for attorney general. Before Sept. 11, his conservative credentials on judicial nominees, enforcing federal pornography laws and protecting gun owner's rights were good. Karl Rove, Bush's trusted political adviser, had handled Ashcroft's political campaigns and Majority Leader of the Senate Trent Lott, R-Miss., favored his nomination."
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #173 of 498
Thread Starter 
K-A-R-L is the leaker?! and the press is confirming "off the record"?!

From http://atrios.blogspot.com/

Julian Borger Names Karl Rove

"Several of the journalists are saying privately 'yes it was Karl Rove who I talked to.'"


Guardian audio report here. (about 1:20 in)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_09_2...94896909629277

Web Version:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/0,12271,759893,00.html


B-Y-E-K-A-R-L
post #174 of 498
I just listened to that!
post #175 of 498
Quote:
In regards to your editied post........the most damning evidence is his speech about why we should go to war.

Now I suppose you're going to say " What if he was given false info? "

You realize that everything he said in the State of the Union was true don't you? Do you even know what it was that he said in the State of the Union that was so hotly debated?

He said that British Intelligence believes that Iraq was seeking to purchase "yellow cake" from Niger.

That was true. British Intelligence believed it. Whether Iraq was actually seeking to purchase it or not is irrelevant to the veracity of this statement.

If person A tells me that Person B ran a stop sign at 3:00 this afternoon, and I later say to Person C "person A says that Person B ran a stop sign," that's a truthful statement. Even if I KNOW that Person B didn't run the stop sign, who cares, all I'm doing is commenting that someone else has said he did, I'm not saying he did.

Was it irresponsible to use this statement, even though true, if there was significant evidence that underminded the British claim? Probably, but it was still truthful. The ONLY way he lied is if the British DID NOT BELIEVE IT. They have confirmed that they did.

But at any rate, this has nothing to do with the topic, so I'm sorry I so far digress.
post #176 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
You realize that everything he said in the State of the Union was true don't you? Do you even know what it was that he said in the State of the Union that was so hotly debated?

He said that British Intelligence believes that Iraq was seeking to purchase "yellow cake" from Niger.

He didn't say anything about yellow cake or Niger. This is the precise quote: "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
post #177 of 498
Joe Wilson was on Fox and Friends this morning. He backed off a little from the accusation against Rove. I'm looking to see if I can find a transcript.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
post #178 of 498
Thread Starter 
He mentioned it on pauyla zahn last night. He basicallly said that he has "tempered" his stock speech so that he leaves out the "frog march" out of the white house phrase.

Someone in the WH endangered his wife's life. I give him much leeway

Quote:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILSON: It's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

ZAHN: You're laughing. Are you backing off this? And if so, why?

WILSON: Well, first of all, just to put it in context, it was in response to a question about the investigation. And what's left out of that is my saying that I intended to cooperate with the investigation, because, after all, one would like to see results, Karl Rove being the name that one puts to the White House political operation.

In fact, the chain of command from the CIA goes right up to the White House and to the president of the United States. In fact, the outing of my wife was obviously a political or communications move. The head of the political operation is Karl Rove. If I've tempered anything, it has been that I've dropped the frog-marching him out of the White House in handcuffs from my stock speech in this matter.

ZAHN: So what does that mean? Is he off the hook? Are you still saying this goes all the way to the top levels of the White House?

WILSON: No, on the contrary, I don't have any specific information. I would hope that an investigation would yield the information as to who was responsible for the precise leak.

What I do have are any number of journalist sources, none of whom I have any reason not to believe, who have said that the White House was pushing this story after the leak, after the Novak article, and including Karl Rove.

ZAHN: "The Washington Post" reported over the weekend that at least six Washington correspondents were fed this same information. Why?

here's what the media soundbite "frog" phrase left out.In another article he goes on to mention what was left out of the soundbite. i don't have the link but it ends something like "and i would like the end result to be justice served" or something like that.
post #179 of 498
Quote:
"the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''

thanks for the clarity. it doesn't change my point
post #180 of 498
Jack Shafer makes an interesting point:
Quote:
Novak's White House sources aren't the only potentially prosecutable leakers. The identity of an undercover operative such as Plame would not automatically be something in circulation at the White House. Somebody at the CIA would have had to tell the White House that Plame was Wilson's wife and that she was undercover. Any aggressive Justice dragnet is as likely to collect CIA employees as it is White House officials.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
post #181 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
He mentioned it on pauyla zahn last night. He basicallly said that he has "tempered" his stock speech so that he leaves out the "frog march" out of the white house phrase.

Someone in the WH endangered his wife's life...

You don't know that. All you know is someone probably broke the law.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
post #182 of 498
Now that some reporters are saying Rove's name, what do people suppose should happen to him? That is, if he's found guilty of what these reporters claim he did.

Anyone?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #183 of 498
Thread Starter 
Everyone except "Bob Novak" _including_ the counsel to White House is claiming that his wife was either "undercover" or an "operative". That means she worked the field setting up contacts and sources in the field. If this is what in indeed what she did then i have some other stuff "I don't know"

I don't know exactly how many CIA agents could have been killed because of this leak.

I don't know exactly how many contacts could have been killed because of this leak.

I don't know exactly how many americans could have been put in danger because of this leak.

Joe Wilson said it best in the paula zahn interview:

Quote:
We've always thought about this in the context of what is compromised in terms of national security. What operations? What agents? What networks that have been put into place during her career.That was the focus of our thinking. I will tell you that increasingly people are asking that question.


I'm afraid i disagree when you say "All you know is someone probably broke the law." We know her cover was blown. I think this whole thing goes a little futher then a "broken law".
post #184 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12


I don't know exactly how many CIA agents could have been killed because of this leak.


I do: none.

The pathetic extents to which the Bush-hating Michael Moore Green Party crowd will go to has reached such a fevered pitch, it's more amusing than disturbing. The reason why "Bushies" aren't posting is because they see things for what they are: not a big deal, despite the noise. The people making the noise have gone to such ridiculous extents to discredit themselves, they no longer have any credibility. They're like people who have "Vietnam Vet" carboard signs asking for money, who fold up their wheelchairs, and go home, after a hard day's work.

It's tiresome to "debate" with people who, quite frankly, want nothing more than to throw liquid feces on you, or a balloon full of animal blood, or a tofu pie, or whatever. If you do debate with them, then they chop up and edit the video, ala Michael Moore.

Why aren't there more "Bushies" on this forum? The simple answer is that the far left doesn't listen, and they have become so shrill, and pathetic, it's pointless to waste your time with them.

The Cubs-Atlanta game just became interesting.

Goodbye.
post #185 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by JamesBSD
I do: none.

The pathetic extents to which the Bush-hating Michael Moore Green Party crowd will go to has reached such a fevered pitch, it's more amusing than disturbing. The reason why "Bushies" aren't posting is because they see things for what they are: not a big deal, despite the noise. The people making the noise have gone to such ridiculous extents to discredit themselves, they no longer have any credibility. They're like people who have "Vietnam Vet" carboard signs asking for money, who fold up their wheelchairs, and go home, after a hard day's work.

It's tiresome to "debate" with people who, quite frankly, want nothing more than to throw liquid feces on you, or a balloon full of animal blood, or a tofu pie, or whatever. If you do debate with them, then they chop up and edit the video, ala Michael Moore.

Why aren't there more "Bushies" on this forum? The simple answer is that the far left doesn't listen, and they have become so shrill, and pathetic, it's pointless to waste your time with them.

The Cubs-Atlanta game just became interesting.

Goodbye.

Hyperbole.

Don't confuse our intensity with fanaticism. We are entirely "in the right" here and Bush apologists should join the quest to "get to the bottom" of the issue. If Bush doesn't seem to care about it and you don't seem to care that he doesn't seem to care, then it reflects poorly on you.
post #186 of 498
Thread Starter 
So a CIA agent getting outed, lives put in danger, years of contacts and anti-terrorism networks possibly wasted as well as a possible afront to national security solely for political revenge is just not as exciting as baseball?

Gotcha.
Check.

You have a good one james.

Be glad you don't have any relatives who disagree with the White House, and work for the CIA.
post #187 of 498
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Now that some reporters are saying Rove's name, what do people suppose should happen to him? That is, if he's found guilty of what these reporters claim he did.

Anyone?

If he did it and if they can prove it. Then the penalty i have heard on the news is 10 years. Of which he serve the full amount in a NON country club prison.
post #188 of 498
10 years. Anyone think Rove shouldn't spend 10 years in prison for this?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #189 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
If he did it and if they can prove it. Then the penalty i have heard on the news is 10 years. Of which he serve the full amount in a NON country club prison.

The better question to ask is this. Has any government official ever been convicted for leaking information through a telephone conversation with a reporter when the reporter and person accused both claim it did not occur. (As Novak has already done) how would you ever prosecute and win the case?

From my searches there has never been anyone convicted of leaking via a phone conversation. There have been folks convicted of leaking documents, but then again paper trails make this sort of thing easier to prove. How do you prove a phone conversation?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #190 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Hyperbole.

Don't confuse our intensity with fanaticism. We are entirely "in the right" here and Bush apologists should join the quest to "get to the bottom" of the issue. If Bush doesn't seem to care about it and you don't seem to care that he doesn't seem to care, then it reflects poorly on you.

Intensity? More like insanity. A claim from a man who has publicly claimed he wanted Rove arrested. Made and then withdrew a claim that he knew the leak was from Rove yet has "credibility" because he fits your agenda.

Meanwhile Novak has "no credibility" when he clearly says that no one in the White House administration called him and leaked the information.

As for Bush not caring about it, CNN's headline reads Bush: "I want to know" where leak came from.

President Bush said he welcomes a Justice Department investigation into any involvement his administration might have had in revealing the classified identity of a CIA operative. "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of," Bush said.

Yep sounds like denial, stonewalling, and avoidance.

Dance, Shawn, dance and spin.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #191 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The better question to ask is this. Has any government official ever been convicted for leaking information through a telephone conversation with a reporter when the reporter and person accused both claim it did not occur. (As Novak has already done) how would you ever prosecute and win the case?

Well if 'several' reporters have stated that Rove did this, Novak becomes irrelevant to the case. Will the words of several reporters hold more weight than one Karl Rove? Probably not with the current Justice Department.

As for Bush's comments, him 'taking care of' the person that opened the leak isn't really enough in a criminal case. He can't '[take] care of it,' the courts have to do that. So, that sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. Let the administration take care of it and reprimand someone rather than let the courts handle it.

Would you consider this proposition a valid result in this particular case?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #192 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Well if 'several' reporters have stated that Rove did this, Novak becomes irrelevant to the case. Will the words of several reporters hold more weight than one Karl Rove? Probably not with the current Justice Department.

As for Bush's comments, him 'taking care of' the person that opened the leak isn't really enough in a criminal case. He can't '[take] care of it,' the courts have to do that. So, that sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. Let the administration take care of it and reprimand someone rather than let the courts handle it.

Would you consider this proposition a valid result in this particular case?

It could also mean that he might fire or dismiss the person even if there wasn't enough evidence to get a conviction or press a case, but there was enough to know who did it and what was done. That could be "taking care of it."

I say this because there have been numerous cases of officer beatings where the officers were not convicted of any crime but were later fired. Getting a conviction in this type of case might be near impossible. However that doesn't mean there couldn't be something convincing to a layperson and thus Bush would dismiss the person from his or her job.

As for the reporters, obviously if there are several corroborating stories the matter would change. I have seen the charge posted in here that two operatives called six different reporters or something like that. Of course two operatives could not be Karl Rove and Karl Rove. Likewise several reporters cannot just "know" that Karl Rove did it. I think they would have had to have been contacted by Rove and been told the information by Rove.

However again suppose that it were 100% true. It would still be very hard to convict unless the several reporters were told the full information. If they were each given a piece for example and then put it together while talking in the press pool, how do you convict on that?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #193 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
[B]Intensity? More like insanity. A claim from a man who has publicly claimed he wanted Rove arrested. Made and then withdrew a claim that he knew the leak was from Rove yet has "credibility" because he fits your agenda.

So? Wilson thinks Rove was the cowardly leak. You're spinning this too much. Whether Wilson has credibility or not is completely irrelevant.
Quote:
Meanwhile Novak has "no credibility" when he clearly says that no one in the White House administration called him and leaked the information.

I see, so Wilson makes and "withdraws"(lol) a claim and he has no credibility. However Novak WRITES something that gets published and then changes the story completely and we're supposed to believe him? Nice logic. Keep spinning it.
Quote:
As for Bush not caring about it, CNN's headline reads Bush: "I want to know" where leak came from.

What else did you expect him to say? You show them Mr. Prez!
Quote:
President Bush said he welcomes a Justice Department investigation into any involvement his administration might have had in revealing the classified identity of a CIA operative. "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of," Bush said.
Yep sounds like denial, stonewalling, and avoidance.

Sounds like nothing actually. What else did you expect him to say?
Quote:
Dance, Shawn, dance and spin.

That's what you're doing. Only you're pretty bad at it.
post #194 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
So? Wilson thinks Rove was the cowardly leak. You're spinning this too much. Whether Wilson has credibility or not is completely irrelevant.
I see, so Wilson makes and "withdraws"(lol) a claim and he has no credibility. However Novak WRITES something that gets published and then changes the story completely and we're supposed to believe him? Nice logic. Keep spinning it.
What else did you expect him to say? You show them Mr. Prez!

Sounds like nothing actually. What else did you expect him to say?
That's what you're doing. Only you're pretty bad at it.

Oh yes, I forgot. People making charges on the left don't have to be credible. As for what did I expect him to say??

I don't know maybe something like "There is no controlling legal authority" on phone conversations. I mean it worked for Gore on fund raising didn't it?


Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #195 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
10 years. Anyone think Rove shouldn't spend 10 years in prison for this?

If he did it, of course...and more. What damage this might have done to national security is incalculable..this is a case of treason...and as such the perp should get a sentence to match. In my book that's more like 20 years.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #196 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Oh yes, I forgot. People making charges on the left don't have to be credible. As for what did I expect him to say??

This whole thing wasn't started by Wilson, wtf? By the way, you did know Bush I appointed him right?
Quote:
I don't know maybe something like "There is no controlling legal authority" on phone conversations. I mean it worked for Gore on fund raising didn't it?

Who cares how the information was transmitted? The point is information that wasn't supposed to be revealed was. What does Gore have to do with any of this? Oh yeah, it's just more of your spin.

Everyone is "innocent until proven guilty". However with some of you it's more like "they couldn't be guilty!!" That attitude makes you sound like Bush apologists. How about we just let the investigation run it's course? Hopefully for EVERYONE, it'll be fair and meticulous one. Even better, since no one has anything to hide(right?), why not an independent investigation?
post #197 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Hyperbole.

Don't confuse our intensity with fanaticism. We are entirely "in the right" here and Bush apologists should join the quest to "get to the bottom" of the issue. If Bush doesn't seem to care about it and you don't seem to care that he doesn't seem to care, then it reflects poorly on you.

I suppose that if I saved my feces in a bucket and threw them at liberal activists at a demonstration, my "intensity" and my belief that I am "in the right" would be convincing to you?

Get a life. I have more class than that.

"Intensity"?

One acronym: "B.S."

People who are "intense" who believe they are "in the right", in my opinion, are very, very dangerous. Their psychology borders on the psychotic, especially when they take these beliefs and make them violent expressions of their belief. Osama Bin Laden is "intense". He believes he is "in the right". We can talk about radical right wing pro-lifers, or radical left wing ecoterrorists, if you'd like. They're all "intense". They all think they're "in the right". They're all dangerous. All of their beliefs border on self-centered psychotic "reality".

My normality isn't a weakness. I'm patient. Tolerant. And more interested in the things around me, than what's happening in Washington. I don't take my battles into the street. I take them to the voting booth. I'm one guy. I get one vote. I do have opinions, but what's wrong with dealing with the things I can deal with, and doing the stuff I enjoy, and not fighting the battles I can't win, and not doing stuff I don't enjoy? I wouldn't enjoy being an activist. Why should I? I strongly suspect that between the enormous volume of reading I do, and a doctorate degree (M.D.), I am quite a bit more informed about most issues than you are.

Get a life. If you have a problem with Bush, write your elected representatives in the Congress and Senate. Take your opinions with you to the voting booth. But if you want to change the world, you're better off affecting things at a local level, than you are spewing your hatred on the internet. The "Bushies" don't respond for a very simple reason: it's a waste of time.

And I've wasted enough time.

This "scandal" is already blowing over.

It's "Wannabe-Watergate 6"--a bad Hollywood movie, like "Lethal Weapon 6", or "Amityville 9", or "Jason vs. Freddy", or whatever. The fact that you waste any of your time on it reflects poorly on you.
post #198 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
So a CIA agent getting outed, lives put in danger, years of contacts and anti-terrorism networks possibly wasted as well as a possible afront to national security solely for political revenge is just not as exciting as baseball?

Gotcha.
Check.

You have a good one james.

Be glad you don't have any relatives who disagree with the White House, and work for the CIA.

My father has trained many of the people who now work at the NSA and the CIA. My father is a mathematician--many of his graduate students found jobs there. I have stayed in their homes in Washington.

Whose lives were put in danger? Answer a simple question. A lot of "intelligence" isn't "covert" and doesn't involve "deep cover operatives", slinking about with pistols in a hostile environment. They're just very smart people who go out and ask questions and piece together data in a file. You seem to imply that everything the CIA does is cloak and dagger, deep-cover stuff. A lot of people who work for the CIA do things like: read newspapers. Look at satellite photos. Etc. There's no James Bond mystique involved.

Real spying hasn't been anything like James Bond since Britain and "ULTRA"--which included eminent mathematicians like Alan Turing--which broke a cryptographic scheme the Germans thought was unbreakable. The U.S. cracked the Japanese diplomatic code, "Purple", using very, very smart people--mathematicians. I don't think you know what real spying is actually about.

I think you're living in a James Bond world. Stop watching that crap and learn some real math.

Your willingness to hate America sickens me. And you haven't got the foggiest clue what you are talking about.

It's bad enough that the bureaucracy leaked a name. It shouldn't have happened. I agree completely.

William Buckley has publicly admitted he was a CIA agent at one time, however. No one has killed him, yet. His admission didn't endanger anyone, or presumably he would have been prosecuted. Knowing that someone worked for the CIA is NOT a terrible, horrible, ugly secret. It depends on what the person was doing for the CIA.

Should it be illegal to leak the names of people who do janitorial work at the CIA?

In the grand scheme of things, this doesn't actually matter. If you have better information, tell me who died, or what was compromised. Until I see evidence that something bad happened, I'm not convinced this was anything but a very stupid bureaucratic mistake. If the bureaucrat can be found, prosecute that person. But don't give me a stupid argument that the Bush administration is leaking information to punish people at a personnel level, from the top down. Bush doesn't have evil mind control over every fool in the bureaucracy, regardless of what "wannabe-Watergate II" theorists want to believe.

If you want to get nasty, we can talk about Linda Tripp, and what happened to her, in terms of personnel. THAT was a REAL top-down decision. Her stories about how she found all four of her car tires slashed and how her cat died are also interesting. THIS appears to be a leak from somewhere in the bureaucracy. Novak is saying the leak didn't come from the White House.

Get a life.
post #199 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by JamesBSD
This "scandal" is already blowing over.

In your own words, why is outing an agent of the CIA a felony?
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #200 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by JamesBSD
I suppose that if I saved my feces in a bucket and threw them at liberal activists at a demonstration, my "intensity" and my belief that I am "in the right" would be convincing to you?
Get a life. I have more class than that.

Yeah, your post oozes class mate.
Quote:
People who are "intense" who believe they are "in the right", in my opinion, are very, very dangerous. Their psychology borders on the psychotic, especially when they take these beliefs and make them violent expressions of their belief.

Get a grip, this is a message board.You sound almost exactly like a couple other posters on here. Almost too similar. Hmmm.
Quote:
I am quite a bit more informed about most issues than you are.

Funny, you haven't said anything with much substance on the subject at hand. It all sounds like apologies for Bush and ad hominems.
Quote:
Get a life. If you have a problem with Bush, write your elected representatives in the Congress and Senate. Take your opinions with you to the voting booth. But if you want to change the world, you're better off affecting things at a local level, than you are spewing your hatred on the internet. The "Bushies" don't respond for a very simple reason: it's a waste of time.

Maybe you haven't realized it, but this is a message board. People come here to exchange opinions, don't be so sensitive. Are you speaking for all the "Bushies"? Funny, but I think you just responded.
Quote:
And I've wasted enough time.

Amen.
Quote:
It's "Wannabe-Watergate 6"--a bad Hollywood movie, like "Lethal Weapon 6", or "Amityville 9", or "Jason vs. Freddy", or whatever. The fact that you waste any of your time on it reflects poorly on you.

The pot calling the kettle black. Don't forget the Terminator 2 and 3 movies by the way. We'll see how this bad Hollywood movie develops. Feel free to not be so touchy and quick to anger and come join the discussion later.

Note to Mods: I was just curious....have we seen some of the names on this thread "before"? seems like "deja vu all over again" to me in some cases.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › This is REAL treason Ann Coulter: Someone is going to Jail or worse!