[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Proof Sasquatch, we want proof damnit! Not your conjecture from reading or watching the news! Got it.[/quote]
Read BB’s post
Why drag me down the toilet:)
I’m trying very hard to stay clean here.
What was this thread about?
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Proof Sasquatch, we want proof damnit! Not your conjecture from reading or watching the news! Got it.
Read BB’s post
Why drag me down the toilet:)
I’m trying very hard to stay clean here.
What was this thread about?
[/quote]
Oh, just trying to make a point. And, if you are trying to keep it clean why infer that WMD was trying to posture? He addressed your remark and you accused him of playing tough and advised him to listen and learn.
I think you could learn from him.
Elk, don’t you know? If you choose to disagree with Sasquatch you are defacto playing tough and in need of learning…
Heh.
Elk
Please let’s not get into a pissing match just because RJ and ZEB are gone for the night.
His post to me was mean spirited and angry. He was both condescending and arrogant with his remarks. My original post was dead on. That the detainees were being held legally under different rules than cover our ‘normal’ criminals.
In fact, this was backed up clearly by BB’s follow up post.
Or did you think the “are you a lawyer” line was a legit question. What, only a lawyer could know why they were being held under different rules than others!
Or his other reference to slavery and wife beating. True garbage defense. Hyperbole at the highest.
Or is it just because he happens to agree with you so you look past his pompous post and jump on me for a tart reply. Quite the same you harped on ZEB and others about condoning ones activities as long as they believe as you.
I’ve said before and I’ll say again. My beliefs don’t fall on party lines. I don’t respect those whose only replies do so.
I responded politely and informatively to his question. Because he didn’t agree with the response he quacked like the duck he is. I simply gave it back, along with a little righteous indignation.
And the end justifies the means crap is just more hyperbole. You guys will see problems everywhere, because that is what you are loking for. When and if illegal activity happens, I’ll take tge appropriate stance. Leave your moral indignation at the door.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Elk, don’t you know? If you choose to disagree with Sasquatch you are defacto playing tough and in need of learning…
Heh.[/quote]
typical and uncalled for.
You guys must really need confrontation in your lives. It’s too bad that just conversing doesn’t offer you the stimulation or attention you obviously crave.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Elk, don’t you know? If you choose to disagree with Sasquatch you are defacto playing tough and in need of learning…
Heh.[/quote]
I hear you Vroom. It’s tough keeping some of our T-brothers honest.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
vroom wrote:
Elk, don’t you know? If you choose to disagree with Sasquatch you are defacto playing tough and in need of learning…
Heh.
typical and uncalled for.
You guys must really need confrontation in your lives. It’s too bad that just conversing doesn’t offer you the stimulation or attention you obviously crave.
[/quote]
Sasquatch, you piss and moan if the answer isn’t exactly the way you want it. Please PM us the guidebook for posting properly as to not offend you.
You are the one looking for conflict, unless we give you the answer you want to hear. I’m sorry bro, but it doesn’t work that way.
Quit being overly sensitive. WMD got a little attitude with your pedestal remark. You are a man you can take it.
I’ve been called vagina, loser, and a myriad of other things and I am still willing to share my view.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Elk, don’t you know? If you choose to disagree with Sasquatch you are defacto playing tough and in need of learning…
Heh.
I hear you Vroom. It’s tough keeping some of our T-brothers honest.[/quote]
You wouldn’t know honest if it bit you on the vagina.
If you guys aren’t willing to discuss the topic - why the fuck are you even on here? You could probably give a shit - but I have lost all respect for you two.
It is an embarassment to this site that you think you have actually contributed anything to this thread.
Now, please make something really witty and untrue up about what I just said. Or - just for shits and giggles - try posting something even remotely related to the fucking topic.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
vroom wrote:
Elk, don’t you know? If you choose to disagree with Sasquatch you are defacto playing tough and in need of learning…
Heh.
typical and uncalled for.
You guys must really need confrontation in your lives. It’s too bad that just conversing doesn’t offer you the stimulation or attention you obviously crave.
Sasquatch, you piss and moan if the answer isn’t exactly the way you want it. Please PM us the guidebook for posting properly as to not offend you.
You are the one looking for conflict, unless we give you the answer you want to hear. I’m sorry bro, but it doesn’t work that way.
Quit being overly sensitive. WMD got a little attitude with your pedestal remark. You are a man you can take it.
I’ve been called vagina, loser, and a myriad of other things and I am still willing to share my view. [/quote]
I don’t even understand this post.
You engaged me, not the other way around. I was not offended by WMD’s remarks, I thought they were slightly inapproriate given my response, so I responded in kind. Big deal. End of story.
But I guess you have appointed yourself as monitor. I’ve not called you any of the above names. I’ve not engaged you or vroom in any way yet you both feel the need to stand up for someone neither of you could possibly know. All you know is he sits on your side of the fence and you’ll be damned if he will be talked to in a manner such as mine. Fine.
Water off my back Elk. I went back and read the posts again to make sure–I see no problem that should warrant intervention by you or anyone else. As you are so fond of saying–the mods didn’t have a problem with it so why do you?
But you did manage to follow your pattern of continuing to post with nothing relative to the thread.
And vroom’s assertion about not agreeing with a stance is pure gold. Check out that little bit of history.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Elk, don’t you know? If you choose to disagree with Sasquatch you are defacto playing tough and in need of learning…
Heh.
I hear you Vroom. It’s tough keeping some of our T-brothers honest.
You wouldn’t know honest if it bit you on the vagina.
If you guys aren’t willing to discuss the topic - why the fuck are you even on here? You could probably give a shit - but I have lost all respect for you two.
It is an embarassment to this site that you think you have actually contributed anything to this thread.
Now, please make something really witty and untrue up about what I just said. Or - just for shits and giggles - try posting something even remotely related to the fucking topic. [/quote]
Wow, rain, you seem really upset. I apologize if I offended you. I will remove myself from this thread so as not to get you riled up there buddy. You are right I’ve been a total vagina and didn’t stay on topic. Again rain, please find it in your heart to forgive me… if you can.
Oh, and I’ll say this last thing in regard to the topic. I think Rove intentionally let the womens indentity loose for get even purposes. But, your right, I can’t prove it so, I will leave now.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Wow, rain, you seem really upset. I apologize if I offended you. I will remove myself from this thread so as not to get you riled up there buddy. You are right I’ve been a total vagina and didn’t stay on topic. Again rain, please find it in your heart to forgive me… if you can.
Oh, and I’ll say this last thing in regard to the topic. I think Rove intentionally let the womens indentity loose for get even purposes. But, your right, I can’t prove it so, I will leave now.
[/quote]
Thank you.
[quote]100meters wrote:
ZEB wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
QUESTION: Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn?t a special counsel be better?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There?s leaks at the executive branch; there?s leaks in the legislative branch. There?s just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
There was never a pledge to “fire the leaker,” and so Bush couldn’t be backing off of one – there was definitely a statement one could interpret as a pledge to fire anyone who was found to break the law, and that’s all Bush confirmed.
BB:
You are going to have to stop ruining the ABB crowds take on this situation. You know how they hate those pesky little things called FACTS!
You can twist in the wind all ya want zeb, but:
QUESTION: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that?s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
Bush clearly sees firing and “taking care of” as equivalents( yes does mean yes in wingnuttia right?). Scotty boy also said the same damn thing. He is the president’s spokesperson right?
again also:
Bush: “If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.”
Now most would assume firing, but of course it could mean giving the leaker a medal of honor? What does appropriate action mean ZEB, B.B.?
boy those facts ARE pesky things…[/quote]
Hey 100meters ole’ buddy:
It always distresses me when politicians don’t always live up to our expectations.
I think history is a very good measure of how those darned politicians keep letting us down.
Nixon turned out to be dishonest.
Ford…slow of thought.
Carter was indecisive…
Reagan fell asleep during cabinet meetings.
Bush Sr. flip flopped on taxes (that really ticked me off).
Clinton had the morals of an alley cat.
And now we have a President who does not want to fire his top aid. A man who was most responsible for electing him twice to the Presidency unless there is proof (there is that pesky word again) that he actually did something significantly wrong.
I guess none of them are perfect…(I am hanging my head).
[quote]vroom wrote:
BB,
You’ve performed a common republican move. You’ve flipped from one apparent silly stance to another.[/quote]
See now I thougth the democrats strategy.
Wait a second I thought you were the one that was defending President Clinton saying “no President has been under this much scrutiny.” Remember the whole Ken Starr whitch hunt? Remember lying under oath is okay because it was just oral sex? Remember…ah never mind.
Better stop now BB…you know what comes next. 
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Proof Sasquatch, we want proof damnit! Not your conjecture from reading or watching the news! Got it.[/quote]
No proof is usually required when opinion is given. However, when one man accuses another of being a criminal then there should be proof.
Not that I’m thinking of anyone in particular who just did this and threatened to do it again and again…I have no one in mind…just talking about proof.
LOL at this whole thread.
The Conservatives are probably right that Rove didn’t do anything “illegal”.
But whether it was, “moral”, “ethical”, or “Christian like” is another question.
And this brings up another conundrum. Wasn’t the Bush Administration supposed to bring morals and ethics back into politics?
[quote]vroom wrote:
BB,
You’ve performed a common republican move. You’ve flipped from one apparent silly stance to another.
Instead of claiming that one wrong allows another wrong, you’ve now flipped to how horrible it is that Rove is being scrutizined and that those who are looking at him should have looked this hard at others. [/quote]
That’s not what I said. What I said was I have serious doubts that the people who are hopping on Rove care a whole lot about national security and covert operations.
I’ll agree that if Rove did do something, it should come to light. I’ll also be quite happy when the NYT and others actually do care about national security and care if their (the NYT’s and others’ that is, such as scooping a story) other priorities conflict with national security issues.
I’ll disagree that this deserves higher scrutiny simply because of Rove’s position – it deserves the amount of scrutiny appropriate to the act, the issue, and the ex ante policies we wish to highlight regarding national security.
See the rest of my posts in this thread, most of which you have managed to disparage as “biased” without actually addressing a single argument or contention therein.
[quote]KevinKovach wrote:
LOL at this whole thread.
The Conservatives are probably right that Rove didn’t do anything “illegal”.
But whether it was, “moral”, “ethical”, or “Christian like” is another question.
And this brings up another conundrum. Wasn’t the Bush Administration supposed to bring morals and ethics back into politics?[/quote]
Who’s going to be the judge on the ‘moral’. or ‘ethical’ question? I don’t think anyone inside the Beltway can.
Besides after all the spinning and churning of the facts - no one will ever know what really occured. So it’s going to wind up being a matter of which story you believe.
[quote]100meters wrote:
You can twist in the wind all ya want zeb, but:
QUESTION: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that?s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
Bush clearly sees firing and “taking care of” as equivalents( yes does mean yes in wingnuttia right?). Scotty boy also said the same damn thing. He is the president’s spokesperson right? [/quote]
I would say that’s a reasonable interpretation w/r/t “fire,” though it’s not the only one a person could come to. I’d definitely say that at the very least the President was definitely implying taking a negative action.
However, as usual, you have skipped the main point, which is that the action was to be preceded by the finding, by the U.S. attorney that the laws were violated by whomever was to be “taken care of.”
In other words, not just “firing the leaker,” and then running to define “leaker” in a laughably broad manner, irrespective of the legal definitions in question.
[quote]
again also:
Bush: “If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.”
Now most would assume firing, but of course it could mean giving the leaker a medal of honor? What does appropriate action mean ZEB, B.B.?
boy those facts ARE pesky things…[/quote]
Yes, facts are pesky things. See above for exhibit 1. And for this, I’m glad you’re so clairvoyant as to be able to discern the precise meaning of “take appropriate action” as “firing.” It’s not as if the President was specifically speaking like a politician, i.e. broadly to give himself room to act as he thought most appropriate once the facts came to light.
No, he must have been saying he would “fire the leaker” by saying “take appropriate action,” because that’s what The American Prospect, the NYT and the Daily Kos want it to mean. Ah, if only they would share some of what they’ve been smoking… (not that I’d partake, but at least that would show us how to warp reality in such a way as to arrive at the same conclusions).
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
To inform anyone else interested, it’s been alleged/reported that there was a mark on an internal memorandum [that no one is certain who read or to whom it was distributed] that may have been a short-hand indication that the info that Plame had recommended Wilson was classified at some level (the govt. has three levels: Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential). The memo did not ID Plame as an undercover agent, nor specifically designate that the info was classified – the claim is the mark on the memo was shorthand for the fact it shouldn’t be shared, for whatever reason.
In fact, why don’t I just excerpt the actual news article:
[i]The paragraph in the memo discussing Ms. Wilson’s involvement in her husband’s trip is marked at the beginning with a letter designation in brackets to indicate the information shouldn’t be shared, according to the person familiar with the memo. Such a designation would indicate to a reader that the information was sensitive. The memo, though, doesn’t specifically describe Ms. Wilson as an undercover agent, the person familiar with the memo said.
Generally, the federal government has three levels of classified information – top secret, secret and confidential – all indicating various levels of “damage” to national security if disclosed. There also is an unclassified designation – indicating information that wouldn’t harm national security if shared with the public – but that wasn’t the case for the material on the Wilsons prepared by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. It isn’t known what level of classification was assigned to the information in the memo.
Who received the memo, which was prepared for Marc Grossman, then the under secretary of state for political affairs, and how widely it was circulated are issues as Mr. Fitzgerald tries to pinpoint the origin of the leak of Ms. Wilson’s identity. According to the person familiar with the document, it didn’t include a distribution list. It isn’t known if President Bush has seen the memo.
Mr. Fitzgerald has subpoenaed the phone logs from Air Force One for the week of the Africa tour, which precedes the revelation of Ms. Wilson’s CIA identity in a column by Robert Novak on July 14. In that piece, Mr. Novak identified Valerie Plame, using Ms. Wilson’s maiden name, saying that “two senior administration officials” had told him that Ms. Wilson suggested sending her husband to Niger.
Mr. Novak attempted to reach Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, in the days before his column appeared. However, Mr. Fleischer didn’t respond to Mr. Novak’s inquiries, according to a person familiar with his account. Mr. Fleischer, who has since left the administration, is one of several officials who testified before the grand jury. [/i]
Hardly damning proof. Not any proof, actually – but definitely something a good investigator would investigate more thoroughly. A memo that no one knows if Rove read, that had some designation that didn’t indicate info was government classified information. If there is any sort of knowledge standard, this certain won’t satisfy it.
[/quote]
You said:
that had some designation that didn’t indicate info was government classified information.
They said: (From the WP today)
A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked “(S)” for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
Plame – who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo – is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.
The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the “secret” level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as “secret” the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.
Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame’s name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret
again…leaking classified info is bad. This was classified info. Rove DID confirm said info. Libby too. Perhaps others.
on a side note:
What’s also funny is the differences in state dept. and whitehouse “perceptions”…
“Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson’s wife.”
and
"It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson’s trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking “uranium from Niger.”
Wow. Slandering a guy for finding the same thing intel had already found. Nothing. But Bushies weren’t manipulating the intel right Ken Mehlman?
Well, this is on topic, subtopic anyway, based on what I’ve been saying about people forming opinions about the Bush administration…
I guess it “proves” I knew what I was talking about with respect to perception, even if I don’t have the ability to forecast the end result of the investigation and the republicans appear to do.
Buck up Elk, half the NATION agrees with your assessment of Bush and his cronies, I wonder if they all have proof to present to the world for making that judgement call?
Rainjack, when others tone done, do you think you could follow suit, or are you a one trick anger pony? Ride cowboy ride! Rollin’ rollin’ rollin’, rawhide!
–
WASHINGTON - Americans have growing doubts about President Bush’s honesty and his effectiveness, according to a poll taken at a time people are uneasy with the war in Iraq, uncertain about the economy and nervous about the terrorist threat.
Half of those in the poll taken by the Pew Research Center, 49 percent, said they believe the president is trustworthy, while almost as many, 46 percent said he is not. Bush was at 62 percent on this measure in a September 2003 Pew poll and at 56 percent in a Gallup poll in April. One of Bush’s strong suits throughout his presidency has been the perception by a majority of people that he is honest.
The slide in trust in Bush comes at a time the White House is answering questions about top aide Karl Rove’s involvement in the public leak of the identity of a CIA operative.
“If the economy were doing better, the Iraq war wasn’t as tenuous and people weren’t as uneasy about terrorism, then they might be willing to cut Bush some slack on the Rove issue,” said Robert Shapiro, who specializes in public opinion at Columbia University. “And it’s all tied back to how the war was justified, so it raises all those issues as well.”