[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
…
Yes, but people aren’t punished for crimes that aren’t proved, at least not over here in the U.S. Perhaps you have a different system over in Belgium…
Wreckless wrote:
It seems you have a different system over there in Cuba.[/quote]
It seems you wish you could apply the Cuban system to those with whom you disagree – and I’m talking about Castro’s system…
[quote]doogie wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
You want to talk facts. Fine, let’s talk facts. Where is the uranium Saddam bought? What? That’s not the fact you want to discuss. Well, who’s ignoring facts now?
Wilson’s report said Saddam was TRYING to buy yellowcake, not that he bought it. Why do you have such poor comprehension?
[/quote]
Ok then, that must been Novak is in the clear. Just a couple of follow up questions though.
If there isn’t any evidence that Saddam actually bought this mistery yellowcake, do you now have any evidence that he at least was TRYING to buy it? Or don’t you?
Is there any evidence that there was even a shadow of a nuclear program in Iraq?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
…
Yes, but people aren’t punished for crimes that aren’t proved, at least not over here in the U.S. Perhaps you have a different system over in Belgium…
Wreckless wrote:
It seems you have a different system over there in Cuba.
It seems you wish you could apply the Cuban system to those with whom you disagree – and I’m talking about Castro’s system…
[/quote]
Where did I say that? Why drag Castro into this? Are you trying to muddy the waters again?
In the mean time, the US is torturing people in Guantamo Bay.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
They had to have been taking active measures to conceal her particular identity, and during the previous 5 years. Setting up a false front corporation wasn’t specific to Ms. Plame. And, if one is to believe Novak, the CIA didn’t object strongly to his publication of her name when he called them, nor inform him she was an undercover operative.
[/quote]
So others were exposed also. This gets better every time.
Sure sure. Question though: are you this stupid, or do you hope I’m that stupid?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Outed by Novak:
BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, the fact that Novak “outed” Brewster-Jennings would buttress the point that establishing a “knowing” disclosure would be incredibly difficult. Particularly with regard to anyone who told Novak Plame’s name.
And then, if one credits Novak’s testimony on his calls to the CIA prior to publication of his stories, it highly undercuts any notion of the CIA taking active measures to protect her identity at that time.
Wreckless wrote:
Naah, they just like to set-up front companies to have them exposed.
BTW, was she the only agent linked to that company? Or were others exposed also?
I should give you the benefit of the doubt, as English isn’t your first language.
Let me lay forth the implication: The point was that it would be difficult to prove a “knowing” mindset for anyone who gave Plame’s name to Novak if Novak looked up Brewster-Jennings by himself, and publicized it by himself - while claiming, incorrectly, that it proved Plame wasn’t undercover.
The point as to Novak’s story regarding his call to the CIA is that they didn’t tell him not to publish her name, and only said they would prefer he not because it would make it more difficult for her to travel abroad.[/quote]
So at least you acknowledge that the CIA prefered not to have her name exposed, because it would make it difficult for here to travel abroead.
Tell me, do you think they were concerned about her hollyday plans?
And that is only if you choose to believe Novak the traitor.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
doogie wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
You want to talk facts. Fine, let’s talk facts. Where is the uranium Saddam bought? What? That’s not the fact you want to discuss. Well, who’s ignoring facts now?
Wilson’s report said Saddam was TRYING to buy yellowcake, not that he bought it. Why do you have such poor comprehension?
Because he is a troll. No one is that dumb.[/quote]
Zap, I prefer to be called a troll by you. I would consider it an insult to be judged a rational human being by you. We know your standards.
Are you wanting to argue the Plame case or the entire war?
“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” – Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: “There is a problem ? the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right … in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.”
“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” – Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
…
Yes, but people aren’t punished for crimes that aren’t proved, at least not over here in the U.S. Perhaps you have a different system over in Belgium…
Wreckless wrote:
It seems you have a different system over there in Cuba.
It seems you wish you could apply the Cuban system to those with whom you disagree – and I’m talking about Castro’s system…
Where did I say that? Why drag Castro into this? Are you trying to muddy the waters again?
In the mean time, the US is torturing people in Guantamo Bay.[/quote]
Your entire premise on this thread has been that the laws are just inconvenient legal crap that get in the way of punishing those whom you just know deserve the righteous fury of damnation.
[quote]
Marmadogg wrote:
Outed by Novak:
BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, the fact that Novak “outed” Brewster-Jennings would buttress the point that establishing a “knowing” disclosure would be incredibly difficult. Particularly with regard to anyone who told Novak Plame’s name.
And then, if one credits Novak’s testimony on his calls to the CIA prior to publication of his stories, it highly undercuts any notion of the CIA taking active measures to protect her identity at that time.
Wreckless wrote:
Naah, they just like to set-up front companies to have them exposed.
BTW, was she the only agent linked to that company? Or were others exposed also?
BostonBarrister wrote:
I should give you the benefit of the doubt, as English isn’t your first language.
Let me lay forth the implication: The point was that it would be difficult to prove a “knowing” mindset for anyone who gave Plame’s name to Novak if Novak looked up Brewster-Jennings by himself, and publicized it by himself - while claiming, incorrectly, that it proved Plame wasn’t undercover.
The point as to Novak’s story regarding his call to the CIA is that they didn’t tell him not to publish her name, and only said they would prefer he not because it would make it more difficult for her to travel abroad.
Wreckless wrote:
So at least you acknowledge that the CIA prefered not to have her name exposed, because it would make it difficult for here to travel abroead.
Tell me, do you think they were concerned about her hollyday plans?
And that is only if you choose to believe Novak the traitor.[/quote]
No one ever denied it – the problem is that it doesn’t answer the question of whether she was undercover. People who are known employees of the CIA who travel abroad might be more likely to be targeted for kidnapping or what have you.
Novak has now started to speak for himself:
Novak Speaks! (OK< Writes…)
Bob Novak describes his role in the Plame investigation in a column available at Human Events ( Welcome to Our Blog About the Most Prominent Events of the 20th Century ). Here is coverage from Howard Kurtz of the WaPo ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100903.html ), Davis Johnston of the NY Times ( Novak Told Prosecutor His Sources in Leak Case - The New York Times ), and Pete Yost of the AP ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071200265.html ).
Duty calls, so more later, but briefly - the biggest surprise of this story is how plausible and unsurprising it is.
Novak discussed three sources with Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury - Karl Rove, CIA Press flack Bill Harlow, and an as-yet-unnamed government official who has not been identified in this story (let’s just say, Richard Armitage ( http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/03/armitage_woodwa.html ), former Deputy Secretary of State):
[i] However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source’s information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.
When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.
I had a second session with Fitzgerald at Swidler Berlin on Feb. 5, 2004, after which I was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. I testified there at the U.S. courthouse in Washington on Feb. 25.[/i]
And why was Novak wiling to cooperate? Let me pick this out:
The FBI soon asked to interview me, prompting my first major decision. My attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury. To do so would make me subject to imprisonment and inevitably result in court decisions that would diminish press freedom, all at heavy personal legal costs.
Based on Judy Miler’s experience, his attorneys were correct. And I bet that if we understood Bob Novak’s business set-up, we would find that he pays his own legal bills - just a guess, but he looks like a one-man media empire.
He gives us this on the enduring Who’s Who mystery:
Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame’s name from Joe Wilson’s entry in “Who’s Who in America.”
Novak gave sense of his story in this Oct 1, 2003 ( http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2003/10/01/the_cia_leak ) column and in this Aug 1 2005 ( http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2005/08/01/correcting_the_cia ) column responding to Bill Harlow’s account to the WaPo ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069_pf.html ) (my thoughts here: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/08/novak_is_back.html ).
And broadly - if Fitzgerald has freed Novak to speak, doesn’t that strongly support the notion (as noted in Times and Wapo coverage: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/06/no_more_fitzmas.html ) that this investigation is over, over, over? No Fitzmas, no mas.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Outed by Novak:
BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, the fact that Novak “outed” Brewster-Jennings would buttress the point that establishing a “knowing” disclosure would be incredibly difficult. Particularly with regard to anyone who told Novak Plame’s name.
And then, if one credits Novak’s testimony on his calls to the CIA prior to publication of his stories, it highly undercuts any notion of the CIA taking active measures to protect her identity at that time.
Wreckless wrote:
Naah, they just like to set-up front companies to have them exposed.
BTW, was she the only agent linked to that company? Or were others exposed also?
BostonBarrister wrote:
I should give you the benefit of the doubt, as English isn’t your first language.
Let me lay forth the implication: The point was that it would be difficult to prove a “knowing” mindset for anyone who gave Plame’s name to Novak if Novak looked up Brewster-Jennings by himself, and publicized it by himself - while claiming, incorrectly, that it proved Plame wasn’t undercover.
The point as to Novak’s story regarding his call to the CIA is that they didn’t tell him not to publish her name, and only said they would prefer he not because it would make it more difficult for her to travel abroad.
Wreckless wrote:
So at least you acknowledge that the CIA prefered not to have her name exposed, because it would make it difficult for here to travel abroead.
Tell me, do you think they were concerned about her hollyday plans?
And that is only if you choose to believe Novak the traitor.
No one ever denied it – the problem is that it doesn’t answer the question of whether she was undercover. People who are known employees of the CIA who travel abroad might be more likely to be targeted for kidnapping or what have you.
[/quote]
So are you saying that if you blow the cover of a clandestine CIA shell company by outing a CIA ‘desk jockey’ it is the CIA’s fault?
BREWSTER JENNINGS & ASSOCIATES is the real story.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
…
Yes, but people aren’t punished for crimes that aren’t proved, at least not over here in the U.S. Perhaps you have a different system over in Belgium…
Wreckless wrote:
It seems you have a different system over there in Cuba.
It seems you wish you could apply the Cuban system to those with whom you disagree – and I’m talking about Castro’s system…
Where did I say that? Why drag Castro into this? Are you trying to muddy the waters again?
In the mean time, the US is torturing people in Guantamo Bay.
Your entire premise on this thread has been that the laws are just inconvenient legal crap that get in the way of punishing those whom you just know deserve the righteous fury of damnation.[/quote]
There you go again, projecting your own Guantanamo complex on me.
The fact is that Novak the rat outed an undercover CIA-agent. I don’t care if he claims he didn’t know any better. Rats like him never know any better, but they should have known better.
He broke the law, but just because he’s a republican pig, he gets a free pas.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Novak has now started to speak for himself:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/07/novak_speaks_ok.html
Novak Speaks! (OK< Writes…)
Bob Novak describes his role in the Plame investigation in a column available at Human Events ( Welcome to Our Blog About the Most Prominent Events of the 20th Century ). Here is coverage from Howard Kurtz of the WaPo ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100903.html ), Davis Johnston of the NY Times ( Novak Told Prosecutor His Sources in Leak Case - The New York Times ), and Pete Yost of the AP ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071200265.html ).
Duty calls, so more later, but briefly - the biggest surprise of this story is how plausible and unsurprising it is.
Novak discussed three sources with Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury - Karl Rove, CIA Press flack Bill Harlow, and an as-yet-unnamed government official who has not been identified in this story (let’s just say, Richard Armitage ( http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/03/armitage_woodwa.html ), former Deputy Secretary of State):
[i] However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source’s information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.
When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.
I had a second session with Fitzgerald at Swidler Berlin on Feb. 5, 2004, after which I was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. I testified there at the U.S. courthouse in Washington on Feb. 25.[/i]
And why was Novak wiling to cooperate? Let me pick this out:
The FBI soon asked to interview me, prompting my first major decision. My attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury. To do so would make me subject to imprisonment and inevitably result in court decisions that would diminish press freedom, all at heavy personal legal costs.
Based on Judy Miler’s experience, his attorneys were correct. And I bet that if we understood Bob Novak’s business set-up, we would find that he pays his own legal bills - just a guess, but he looks like a one-man media empire.
He gives us this on the enduring Who’s Who mystery:
Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame’s name from Joe Wilson’s entry in “Who’s Who in America.”
Novak gave sense of his story in this Oct 1, 2003 ( http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2003/10/01/the_cia_leak ) column and in this Aug 1 2005 ( http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2005/08/01/correcting_the_cia ) column responding to Bill Harlow’s account to the WaPo ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069_pf.html ) (my thoughts here: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/08/novak_is_back.html ).
And broadly - if Fitzgerald has freed Novak to speak, doesn’t that strongly support the notion (as noted in Times and Wapo coverage: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/06/no_more_fitzmas.html ) that this investigation is over, over, over? No Fitzmas, no mas.
[/quote]
He shouldn’t be giving interviews and writing other lies. He should be in jail, with Kenny Boy.
Just because they were both republican pigs, they get a free pass.
The cowboy is soft on crime when the crimes are commited by his croonies. This is by far the most corrupt and incompetent administration in the US since WWII.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
The fact is that Novak the rat outed an undercover CIA-agent. I don’t care if he claims he didn’t know any better. Rats like him never know any better, but they should have known better.
He broke the law, but just because he’s a republican pig, he gets a free pas.[/quote]
Perhaps you’re having some trouble with your reading skills. It’s never been alleged by anyone credible that Novak broke any laws. To actually break these laws, you need to have done so intentionally. And that’s aside from the question of whether Plame qualified as a “covert operative” under the law, which has not been established.
It’s too bad you’re not world dictator, able to mete out the death sentences, prison buggery and torture you just know your enemies and those you despise truly deserve. Perhaps you can hide in a bush somewhere and crush all their heads. Crush, crush, crush…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
The fact is that Novak the rat outed an undercover CIA-agent. I don’t care if he claims he didn’t know any better. Rats like him never know any better, but they should have known better.
He broke the law, but just because he’s a republican pig, he gets a free pas.
Perhaps you’re having some trouble with your reading skills. It’s never been alleged by anyone credible that Novak broke any laws. To actually break these laws, you need to have done so intentionally. And that’s aside from the question of whether Plame qualified as a “covert operative” under the law, which has not been established.
It’s too bad you’re not world dictator, able to mete out the death sentences, prison buggery and torture you just know your enemies and those you despise truly deserve. Perhaps you can hide in a bush somewhere and crush all their heads. Crush, crush, crush…[/quote]
You’re projecting your Guantanamo complex on me again. You really should get some professional help on that.
The facts are that anybody who dares to oppose Bush and his clan gets swiftboated and dixie chicked. While his croonies get away with treason and worse.
But hey, if that’s ok with you. It’s your country after all. I’m just wondering who will clean up after the spoiled brat has brooken his toy.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
The fact is that Novak the rat outed an undercover CIA-agent. I don’t care if he claims he didn’t know any better. Rats like him never know any better, but they should have known better.
He broke the law, but just because he’s a republican pig, he gets a free pas.
Perhaps you’re having some trouble with your reading skills. It’s never been alleged by anyone credible that Novak broke any laws. To actually break these laws, you need to have done so intentionally. And that’s aside from the question of whether Plame qualified as a “covert operative” under the law, which has not been established.
It’s too bad you’re not world dictator, able to mete out the death sentences, prison buggery and torture you just know your enemies and those you despise truly deserve. Perhaps you can hide in a bush somewhere and crush all their heads. Crush, crush, crush…
Wreckless wrote:
You’re projecting your Guantanamo complex on me again. You really should get some professional help on that.[/quote]
What “Guantanamo complex”? I’m simply referencing recent positions you’ve taken saying people on this board should be tortured, rejoicing when Ken Lay died - though wishing he’d been subject to greater misery and punishment, and even speculating on some sort of conspiracy. Speaking of needing professional help, those positions of yours are rather worrisome - I’d suggest someone who specializes in anti-social persons with delusions of grandeur.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
The facts are that anybody who dares to oppose Bush and his clan gets swiftboated and dixie chicked. While his croonies get away with treason and worse.[/quote]
Really, anyone? All the people who didn’t support Bush got to have albums that debuted at #1? You should cut an album and cash in on this phenomenon.
It’s too bad you don’t understand the nuances of the free speech concept – you know, that other people can express opinions on your opinions…
Or maybe you can explain if you’re implying a conspiracy of some sort, or a governmental action against those who speak out against Bush? As usual, you’re about as clear as mud.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
But hey, if that’s ok with you. It’s your country after all. I’m just wondering who will clean up after the spoiled brat has brooken his toy.[/quote]
I thought your mom did that for you. But that’s really no impact on us over here, just as your misunderstanding of things generally doesn’t really effect us either.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
The fact is that Novak the rat outed an undercover CIA-agent. I don’t care if he claims he didn’t know any better. Rats like him never know any better, but they should have known better.
He broke the law, but just because he’s a republican pig, he gets a free pas.
Perhaps you’re having some trouble with your reading skills. It’s never been alleged by anyone credible that Novak broke any laws. To actually break these laws, you need to have done so intentionally. And that’s aside from the question of whether Plame qualified as a “covert operative” under the law, which has not been established.
It’s too bad you’re not world dictator, able to mete out the death sentences, prison buggery and torture you just know your enemies and those you despise truly deserve. Perhaps you can hide in a bush somewhere and crush all their heads. Crush, crush, crush…
Wreckless wrote:
You’re projecting your Guantanamo complex on me again. You really should get some professional help on that.
What “Guantanamo complex”? I’m simply referencing recent positions you’ve taken saying people on this board should be tortured, rejoicing when Ken Lay died - though wishing he’d been subject to greater misery and punishment, and even speculating on some sort of conspiracy. Speaking of needing professional help, those positions of yours are rather worrisome - I’d suggest someone who specializes in anti-social persons with delusions of grandeur.[/quote]
I never said people on this board should be tortured. No, I take that back.
You’re right. I did say people on this board should be tortured. In my opinion, anybody that is condoning the abuse of people in Abu Ghraib or Guantanomo bay, should have a small cookie of their own dough. I really think it would improve their soul.
I never rejoiced when Ken Lay died. I was really upset when I read he died a free man. He should have been in jail.
Thousands of people lost their job because of this man. Many more lost money, sometimes thier livesavings. You can say he stole from the poor and gave to the rich. I guess that makes him a republican hero. With so many republicans leaders refusing to serve their country, you have to take what you can get.
I never speculated on some sort of conspiracy. Are you hearing voices also?
I notice you talk about anti-social persons with delusions of grandeur. Surely, you’re not talking about me. I’m not the one having a direct link with God. I’m just redicule the people that claim they have. And point out the flaws in their logic.
The fact that it didn’t work is besides the point.
That’s where you are wrong. Freedom of speach means that you should be free to express you opinion. Of course, others should be allowed to comment on that, but they shouldn’t be allowed to threaten you in your personal life, or hurt you in professional life.
The Republicans seem to get away with both. Again.
Let me clarify my position then. Bush lets his dogs loose on those who oppose him. He let loose the swift boat liars on Kerry. He let loose Novak the rat on Plame. And he let loose O’Reilly the vulgar pig boy on the Dixie Chicks. Is that clear enough for you?
[quote]
Wreckless wrote:
But hey, if that’s ok with you. It’s your country after all. I’m just wondering who will clean up after the spoiled brat has brooken his toy.
I thought your mom did that for you. But that’s really no impact on us over here, just as your misunderstanding of things generally doesn’t really effect us either. [/quote]
History will tell.
[quote]
Wreckless wrote:
The facts are that anybody who dares to oppose Bush and his clan gets swiftboated and dixie chicked. While his croonies get away with treason and worse.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Really, anyone? All the people who didn’t support Bush got to have albums that debuted at #1? You should cut an album and cash in on this phenomenon.
Wreckless wrote:
The fact that it didn’t work is besides the point.[/quote]
What didn’t work – that grand conspiracy to destroy the Dixie Chicks, in which the cagey Bush administration canvassed all of the country radio stations to get them to alter their playlists, and the hicks did it because of their slavish devotion to Bush?
Come on now… you can’t really believe that, or anything like that – don’t you know a grass-roots phenomenon when you see one? I guess not, per below.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s too bad you don’t understand the nuances of the free speech concept – you know, that other people can express opinions on your opinions…
Wreckless wrote:
That’s where you are wrong. Freedom of speach means that you should be free to express you opinion. Of course, others should be allowed to comment on that, but they shouldn’t be allowed to threaten you in your personal life, or hurt you in professional life.
The Republicans seem to get away with both. Again.[/quote]
No, you don’t understand the concept. Do you, or do you not, believe that the right of free speech includes the right to boycott or organize to show opposition to those public figures with whom you disagree? What do you think of the idea of people organizing economic boycotts of Nike because they believe Nike doesn’t support “fair” trade, or against companies they believe have racist policies? Would you support a boycott of Ann Coulter’s books?
The right to criticize, the right to denounce, the right to boycott – those are all part of freedom of speech. To the extent you dislike those ideas, you dislike free speech. And to the extent people dislike their application, they should avoid becoming controversial public figures.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Or maybe you can explain if you’re implying a conspiracy of some sort, or a governmental action against those who speak out against Bush? As usual, you’re about as clear as mud.
Wreckless wrote:
Let me clarify my position then. Bush lets his dogs loose on those who oppose him. He let loose the swift boat liars on Kerry. He let loose Novak the rat on Plame. And he let loose O’Reilly the vulgar pig boy on the Dixie Chicks. Is that clear enough for you?[/quote]
You need to check your facts. Novak was highly critical of Iraq, and I believe the column in which he “outed” Plame was also highly critical of the administration and Iraq. Novak is a noted “paleo-conservative,” a group with self-defined and marked opposition to this administration’s foreign policies.
O’Reilly is a gas bag who serves his own populist agenda – he’s also been critical of the administration, but part of his populist schtick is to attack controversial celebrities who make generally uninformed pronouncements, particularly when they come off as unpatriotic.
There are arguments about the Swift Boat Veterans, but those are less clear, so I’ll leave that one alone – though noting that free speech is particularly strong with respect to actual politics and politicians.
I didn’t know there was a boycott of Ann Coulters books.
Tell me, is there an organisation behind it? Do they phone bookstores and threaten to burn down the store if they sell her books? Do they protest outside and keep people from entering the store?
Because, if they did, I wouldn’t support that.
If I didn’t agree with the political views of a singer, and if he choose to express these views repeatedly, that might eventually lead me to not buying his records.
But I wouldn’t go out of my way to prevent others from buying them. I wouldn’t phone radio stations and threaten them if they played his records.
I wouldn’t go into shops and destroy his CD’s.
The Republicans have build a hughe mud-slinging machine and they smear everybody they don’t like with impunity.
O’Reilly may be an idiot, but he’s a usefull idiot. And Bush is using him.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
I didn’t know there was a boycott of Ann Coulters books.
Tell me, is there an organisation behind it? Do they phone bookstores and threaten to burn down the store if they sell her books? Do they protest outside and keep people from entering the store?
Because, if they did, I wouldn’t support that.
If I didn’t agree with the political views of a singer, and if he choose to express these views repeatedly, that might eventually lead me to not buying his records.
But I wouldn’t go out of my way to prevent others from buying them. I wouldn’t phone radio stations and threaten them if they played his records.
I wouldn’t go into shops and destroy his CD’s.
The Republicans have build a hughe mud-slinging machine and they smear everybody they don’t like with impunity.
O’Reilly may be an idiot, but he’s a usefull idiot. And Bush is using him.[/quote]
Don’t kid yourself…the Democrats do the same sh!t.
Would you label me a hater of the poor and minorities if I told you I wanted to cut funding to welfare?
Democrats do that stupid stuff everyday.
Give me a break!