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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
[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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, it's a lie, at least an indirect lie. If he had better intelligence from his own sources that said the otherwise, he knew the britts were mistaken. Including it in his speach after what he new is decieving with intention. Which is, basically, a kind of lie.
Its not just an irresponsible use of a statement. Attemting to mislead the whole american public, In the State of the Union. Come on... What does "the little voice inside you" really say?
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.
Just for the sake of discussion...can you reveal any names? I mean, since it's no big deal and all.
Quote:
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.
How do you know any lives were not put in danger? So please enlighten us as to what Wilson's wife did at the CIA since you're such an "expert" here.
Quote:
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.
OK, you talk a lot about what spying isn't. Tell us what spying IS then. Put your money where your mouth is.
Quote:
Your willingness to hate America sickens me. And you haven't got the foggiest clue what you are talking about.
Are you serious? Can you tell from such an innocent discussion that he hates America? Again, you are being all talk and not much substance. PLease enlighten us on the subject.
Quote:
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.
How do you know his admission, voluntary and not by a leak, did not endanger anyone? It appears Mrs. Wilson was involved with weapons of mass destruction.
Quote:
Should it be illegal to leak the names of people who do janitorial work at the CIA?
Irrelevant. You just said that it all depends on what the person was doing for the CIA. You're being silly now.
Quote:
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.
THIS appears to be a leak from somewhere in the bureaucracy. Novak is saying the leak didn't come from the White House.
Well, why don't you enlighten us with what you know. You make all these assertions but then end up asking questions. Why don't you prove us NO ONE has died or will die, or NOTHING has been compromised.If some informant in XXX country died because of this..do you really think we'd hear about it? Did you read the original Novak article? Have you seen how his story has changed? So if it's just a "stupid bureaucratic mistake" let's make sure it is. Let's find out and move on.
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.
Whoaaaa!
I'm sorry but the level intense rhetoric has been ratcheted up chiefly by you.
"Feces in a bucket"
"Get a life."
"B.S."
"Psychology borders on psychotic"
"Radical left-wing ecoterrorists"
"Self-centered psychotic reality"
I mean you really are that far out there that you respond like that. It's terrible. It's nothing but a guttural reaction to the potential political harming of your president and the potential imprisonment of his chief aides. I say potential, of course, because none of us actually believe that justice will be served 100%. You have to admit that somebody broke the law.....and somebody should go to jail for it....and it was somebody in the Bush administration.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like nothing actually. What else did you expect him to say?
Dance, Shawn, dance and spin.
That's what you're doing. Only you're pretty bad at it.
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by JamesBSD
This "scandal" is already blowing over.
In your own words, why is outing an agent of the CIA a felony?
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.
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.
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.
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.
And I've wasted enough time.
Amen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, it's a lie, at least an indirect lie. If he had better intelligence from his own sources that said the otherwise, he knew the britts were mistaken. Including it in his speach after what he new is decieving with intention. Which is, basically, a kind of lie.
Its not just an irresponsible use of a statement. Attemting to mislead the whole american public, In the State of the Union. Come on... What does "the little voice inside you" really say?
Originally posted by JamesBSD
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.
Just for the sake of discussion...can you reveal any names? I mean, since it's no big deal and all.
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.
How do you know any lives were not put in danger? So please enlighten us as to what Wilson's wife did at the CIA since you're such an "expert" here.
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.
OK, you talk a lot about what spying isn't. Tell us what spying IS then. Put your money where your mouth is.
Your willingness to hate America sickens me. And you haven't got the foggiest clue what you are talking about.
Are you serious? Can you tell from such an innocent discussion that he hates America? Again, you are being all talk and not much substance. PLease enlighten us on the subject.
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.
How do you know his admission, voluntary and not by a leak, did not endanger anyone? It appears Mrs. Wilson was involved with weapons of mass destruction.
Should it be illegal to leak the names of people who do janitorial work at the CIA?
Irrelevant. You just said that it all depends on what the person was doing for the CIA. You're being silly now.
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.
THIS appears to be a leak from somewhere in the bureaucracy. Novak is saying the leak didn't come from the White House.
Well, why don't you enlighten us with what you know. You make all these assertions but then end up asking questions. Why don't you prove us NO ONE has died or will die, or NOTHING has been compromised.If some informant in XXX country died because of this..do you really think we'd hear about it?
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.
"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.
Whoaaaa!
I'm sorry but the level intense rhetoric has been ratcheted up chiefly by you.
"Feces in a bucket"
"Get a life."
"B.S."
"Psychology borders on psychotic"
"Radical left-wing ecoterrorists"
"Self-centered psychotic reality"
I mean you really are that far out there that you respond like that. It's terrible. It's nothing but a guttural reaction to the potential political harming of your president and the potential imprisonment of his chief aides. I say potential, of course, because none of us actually believe that justice will be served 100%. You have to admit that somebody broke the law.....and somebody should go to jail for it....and it was somebody in the Bush administration.