[quote]mark57 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
My true character is to not put up with those who constantly resort to name calling and other childish behavior as you are constantly guilty of.
Wow.
Pot, meet Kettle.
[/quote]
Could you please site just one example where I have called someone a childish name?
Now why would you be deliberately misleading?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Yeah, none of my points are valid because I hate Bush and belong to the ABB club.
No - they are only opinions that you and the ABB crowd are working overtime to pass off as fact.
I am positive he has committed perjury and/or obstructed in this case.
The fact is several federal judges believe that a crime was committed as Plames identity was marked secret in the state department memo Powell had on the flight to Africa.
Funny thing - the judge can’t pass down an indictment. It has to be from the Grand Jury. So regardless of the opinions of a couple of judges, proof of a crime has to be presented such that the GJ can indict.
If BB holds any water with you - there is some thought that Powell might be the guilty dog.
There will be indictments. Whether they stick or not is irrelevant.
Ignorance kills.
Irrelevant to who? The ABB crowd? The ones that were indicted?
I’d like to know your definition of ignorance. Seems like you are really fond of tossing out irrelevant titles when void of an honest answer. But I could be wrong.[/quote]
Tears are coming from my eyes…ROTFLMFAO!
Just in case you missed it…this is what the right wingnuts on this board sound like in this particular thread (vroom & 100meters can sound like this too sometimes)
[quote]vroom wrote:
I see the clueless are out in full force tonight.
To whatever it may concern, the following item referred to Powell specifically…
It sounds awfully like Powell or someone close to him. Powell got the memo seven days before Novak went into print with Plame’s name. For what it’s worth, Luskin says Rove hadn’t seen or heard about the memo until investigators mentioned it to him.
To that, I suggested that I didn’t believe it would be Powell. To which everyone took great offense, suggesting that I didn’t consider it deeply enough, or sarcastically that I had great insight into Powell, or that I suggested someone had said it was Powell when they hadn’t.
Yes, maybe a little bit of reading comprehension might do some folks a little bit of good.
Now, does anybody have anything to say about the topic at hand, or should we continue to have a “bash on vroom” evening where it doesn’t matter what I say I have to be attacked for it?
[/quote]
Hmmm. It seems in my skimming I skipped over the Powell inference and focused on the “those close to him” in my thinking – probably because I try to do 3 things at once, with this being the lowest priority. My apologies.
To the extent it was suggesting Powell, I highly doubt it as well.
However, I do think it seems a very interesting theory that the info originally came to Novak via the State Department.
No hard evidence, just circumstance. Novak was actively taking an anti-Administration stance vis a vis Iraq. He’s been described over and over again as a “conservative” journalist, but he’s a paleoconservative (or a “true conservative” in his own jargon), and has been very critical of the “neo-con” Bush administration, particularly on Iraq and the GWOT.
His writing was right in line with the State Department’s take on Iraq, and the memo’s main topic was the State Department’s take on Iraq.
Just something to consider as you drink your coffee…
Zeb, you may not participate in name calling, but Mark certainly has you on the childish behavior part of your statement. There are many ways to be an ass clown other than calling someone names.
Give it a rest.
Yea, I would say that this is an insult. The problem with you vroom is that you have been using personal attacks and childish inslults for so long that you really don’t even notice them anymore.
And I think calling people “clueless” is also a personal insult. Why can’t you simply discuss the issues and refrain from these childish comments?
And I am going to call you on it every time that I see it? If you don’t like that then I suggest you discontinue the childish name calling and try to add something of substance to these threads!
You may want to consider your own words Mr I only like free speech when it agrees with my viewpoint.
Other than responding to your tripe, I’ve been doing a good job of talking about things here… such as the Powell theory or such as the publics view of the administration with respect to distrust.
I know you don’t like the things I say, but that doesn’t mean I’m not making a contribution of substance.
So, yes, it’s wonderful to see you are appointing yourself my keeper. I’m happy you are going to be filling the threads with your childish banter.
Take a look at the medical screening thread. What substance have you added there? Take a look at the martial arts banning, what substance have you added there? No, instead you have flowered snide insults – not name calling, but just as bad.
Oh hypocrite, if only you could take your own advice.
No, wait, instead, why don’t you find someone else to write to in an effort to have my opinion squelched? Of all the low down dirty tactics, that one speaks to your character the most perhaps.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote: There is nothing to fall for you dork.
Yea, I would say that this is an insult. The problem with you vroom is that you have been using personal attacks and childish inslults for so long that you really don’t even notice them anymore.
And I think calling people “clueless” is also a personal insult. Why can’t you simply discuss the issues and refrain from these childish comments?
And I am going to call you on it every time that I see it? If you don’t like that then I suggest you discontinue the childish name calling and try to add something of substance to these threads![/quote]
Zeb, there may be another website out in cyber space intitled Estrogen Nation. Why don’t you go find it so you can debate there without getting your knickers in a knot. I’m sure there they will back you on your incessent crying that others don’t play by your rules or name call. You may also locate a kindergarten classroom where you can tell on the other kids when they say mean things to you and become the teachers favorite student.
Oh, gosh, I can hear it now “personal attack” “personal attack”. Enter rainman with an F-bomb filled diatribe.
Damn Elk, you nailed it! I think Zeb has some desire to be my mother. Cue X-Files music…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
mark57 wrote:
you be deliberately misleading?[/quote]
Hey, that’s an insult you hypocrit!!!
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb, you may not participate in name calling, but Mark certainly has you on the childish behavior part of your statement. There are many ways to be an ass clown other than calling someone names.
Give it a rest.[/quote]
“Ass Clown” is perhaps vrooms favorite put down…Although there are many others…
The point was Zeb, that you can issue a put down without calling someone a name… did you get the point, because I didn’t call you a name.
Anyway… back on topic… bold highlights are my own…
–
Copy of my testimony to be presented on Friday, 22 July 2005 before a joint session of Congressional Democrats.
CORRECTING THE RECORD ON VALERIE PLAME
by Larry C. Johnson
I submit this statement to the Congress in an effort to correct a malicious and disingenuous smear campaign that has been executed against a friend and former colleague, Valerie (Plame) Wilson. Neither Valerie, nor her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson has asked me to do anything on their behalf. I am speaking up because I was raised to stop bullies. In the case of Valerie Plame she is facing a gang of bullies that is being directed by the Republican National Committee.
I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 as a member of the Career Trainee Program. Senator Orin Hatch had written a letter of recommendation on my behalf and I believe that helped open the doors to me at the CIA. From the first day all members of my training class were undercover. In other words, we had to lie to our family and friends about where we worked. We could only tell those who had an absolute need to know where we worked. In my case, I told my wife. Most of us were given official cover, which means that on paper we worked for some other U.S. Government Agency. People with official cover enjoy the benefits of an official passport, usually a black passport–i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card. It accords the bearer the protections of the Geneva Convention.
Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. At the time I only knew her as Valerie P. Even though all of us in the training class held Top Secret Clearances, we were asked to limit our knowledge of our other classmates to the first initial of their last name. So, Larry J. knew Val P. rather than Valerie Plame. Her name did not become a part of my consciousness until her cover was betrayed by the Government officials who gave columnist Robert Novak her true name.
Although Val started off with official cover, she later joined a select group of intelligence officers a few years later when she became a NOC, i.e. a Non-Official Cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. She was using cover, which we now know because of the leak to Robert Novak, of the consulting firm Brewster-Jennings. When she traveled overseas she did not use or have an official passport. If she had been caught engaged in espionage activities while traveling overseas without the black passport she could have been executed.
We must put to bed the lie that she was not undercover. For starters, if she had not been undercover then the CIA would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department. Some reports, such as one in the Washington Times that Valerie Plame?s supervisor at the CIA, Fred Rustman, said she told friends and family she worked at the CIA and that her cover was light. These claims are not true. Rustman, who supervised Val in one of her earliest assignments, left the CIA in 1990 and did not stay in social contact with Valerie. His knowledge of Val?s cover is dated. He does not know what she has done during the past 15 years.
Val only told those with a need to know about her status in order to safeguard her cover, not compromise it. Val has never been a flamboyant, insecure person who felt the need to tell people what her “real” job was. She was content with being known as an energy consultant married to Joe Wilson and the mother of twins. Despite the repeated claims of representatives for the Republican National Committee, the Wilson?s neighbors did not know where Valerie really worked until Novak?s op-ed appeared.
I would note that not a single member of our training class has come forward to denounce Valerie or question her bona fides. To the contrary, those we have talked to have endorsed what those of us who have left the CIA are doing to defend her reputation and honor.
As noted in the joint letter submitted to Congressional leaders earlier this week, the RNC is repeating the lie that Valerie was nothing more than a glorified desk jockey and could not possibly have any cover worth protecting. To those such as Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, P. J. O?Rourke, and Representative Roy Blunt I can only say one thing?you are wrong. I am stunned that some political leaders have such ignorance about a matter so basic to the national security structure of this nation.
Robert Novak?s compromise of Valerie caused even more damage. It subsequently led to scrutiny of her cover company. This not only compromised her “cover” company but potentially every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company or with her.
Another false claim is that Valerie sent her husband on the mission to Niger. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report issued in July 2004, it is clear that the Vice President himself requested that the CIA provide its views on a Defense Intelligence Agency report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. The Vice President?s request was relayed through the CIA bureaucracy to the Director of the Counter Proliferation Division at the CIA. Valerie worked for a branch in that Division.
The Senate Intelligence Report is frequently cited by Republican partisans as “proof” that Valerie sent her husband to Niger because she sent a memo describing her husband?s qualifications to the Deputy Division Chief. Several news personalities, such as Chris Matthews and Bill O?Reilly continue to repeat this nonsense as proof. What the Senate Intelligence Committee does not include in the report is the fact that Valerie?s boss had asked her to write a memo outlining her husband?s qualifications for the job. She did what any good employee does; she gave her boss what he asked for.
The decision to send Joe Wilson on the mission to Niger was made by Valerie?s bosses. She did not have the authority to sign travel vouchers, issue travel orders, or expend one dime of U.S. taxpayer dollars on her own. Yet, she has been singled out by the Republican National Committee and its partisans as a legitimate target of attack. It was Karl Rove who told Chris Matthews, “Wilson?s wife is fair game”.
What makes the unjustified and inappropriate attacks on Valerie Plame and her reputation so unfair is that there was no Administration policy position stipulating that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in February 2002. That issue was still up in the air and, as noted by SSCI, Vice President Cheney himself asked for more information.
At the end of the day we are left with these facts. We went to war in Iraq on the premise that Saddam was reacquiring weapons of mass destruction. Joe Wilson was sent on a mission to Niger in response to a request initiated by the Vice President. Joe Wilson supplied information to the CIA that supported other reports debunking the claim that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger. When Joe went public with his information, which had been corroborated by the CIA in April 2003, the response from the White House was to call him a liar and spread the name of his wife around.
We sit here more than two years later and the storm of invective and smear against Ambassador Wilson and his wife, Valerie, continues. I voted for George Bush in November of 2000 because I wanted a President who knew what the meaning of “is” was. I was tired of political operatives who spent endless hours on cable news channels parsing words. I was promised a President who would bring a new tone and new ethical standards to Washington.
So where are we? The President has flip flopped and backed away from his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a leak. We now know from press reports that at least Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are implicated in these leaks. Instead of a President concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a President who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie and Joe Wilson. This is wrong.
Without firm action by President Bush to return to those principles he promised to follow when he came to Washington, I fear our political debate in this country will degenerate into an argument about what the meaning of “leak” is. We deserve people who work in the White House who are committed to protecting classified information, telling the truth to the American people, and living by example the idea that a country at war with Islamic extremists cannot expend its efforts attacking other American citizens who simply tried to tell the truth.
ass clown is funny but vroom does use it a little too much.
[quote]vroom wrote:
try to add something of substance to these threads!
You may want to consider your own words Mr I only like free speech when it agrees with my viewpoint.[/quote]
Not true I am an advocate of free speech. However, I am also an advocate of good debate. Good debate would exclude your usual name calling and childish rantings when someone disagrees with you!
My “tripe” -Isn’t it up to others to say that you have been doing a “good job?” None the less I did agree with your analysis regarding Powell on this very thread.
No actually, I am impressed by some of the “things you say.” As I have repeatedly stated, I think you are a bright guy. I am simply encouraging you to drop the name calling and other childish antics when others disagree with you. Fair?
Is it childish behavior to point out when others are name calling and carrying on like spoiled kids? No, I think you would like others to think this, but that is a tactic that will have no sway.
You are not using the term “hypocrite” accurately. I am attempting to at least slow down the amount of personal childish put downs coming from your posts. I don’t use such things and never have. Hence, I have taken my own advice!
vroom, I do not want your opinion squelched, as I have told you before. However, I have asked you repeatedly to stop the childish behavior and personal attacks. This is what I am referring to:
[quote]
You are an idiot.
Jerffy, you are an ass clown.
I am afraid you are indeed but an illiterate ass clown.
I see the clueless are out in full force tonight.
There is nothing to fall for you dork.
Surely you aren’t planning on being that useless around here? [/quote]
Can you debate without using these childish put downs and personal attacks? Is it unreasonable for me to request that you do so?
I know you don’t like anyone to stand up to you and tell you to cool it. However you are going to have to put up with it, or actually behave like an adult. The choice is yours!
[quote]mark57 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
mark57 wrote:
you be deliberately misleading?
Hey, that’s an insult you hypocrit!!!
[/quote]
Actually if you hadn’t edited the sentence it is a question:
But…nice try 
Nice little piece there Vroom, but you do know this has to be a disgruntled former agent with some ax to grind. If he was a “normal” “apple pie eating” “flag waving” American he wouldn’t have anything negative to say about this administration.
He’s probably a communist.
[quote]vroom wrote:
The point was Zeb, that you can issue a put down without calling someone a name… did you get the point, because I didn’t call you a name.
[/quote]
Actually vroom I think your entire tone changed several months back when I pointed out to the forum that I thought you were a “liberal.”
I think you looked at that as being a put down. However, it was my way of pointing out what I thought your political slant was. That is fair game. We are here to discuss various political topics and the political persuasion of those debating is fair game.
What you do is simply childish and brings down the forum. Marmadogg was accurately points out “ass clown is funny…”, once or twice. You are sort of making a career of these sorts of put downs…it’s just old.
Yes Elk, but he’s a communist who voted for Bush! 
Zeb, you might as well as give up on reforming my behavior, because I have absolutely zero intention of changing my behavior to please you.
You use snide comments, put downs, mischaracterizations and other antics all the time. You may refrain from calling people names, but your tactics are no better.
So, in short, thanks but no thanks mom.
vroom–anyone
Why is this testimony only before a group of Democrats? I’m not challenging the validity, but why the partisan nature in this case?
As to the testimony. There is a great deal there, but still not any idea of the original leaker. The condemnation of the RNC is, however, widespread with no real factual information.
Of this I agree though. Karl Rove has admitted to passing that name along, or at least confirming her identity and should be spot on fired. Has he comitted a crime–from what I’ve seen no. But ethics and morality have to be upheld in all gov’t and especially in the executive branch. She may or may not have been an active operative at the time. By releasing her name you do indeed bring all those who have had contact with her in the past into harms way.
As the testimony stated. The very first and foremost job of the President should be American/National security. In this case, we’ve allowed politics to come first. Shame on us.
Sasquatch, because it refers to a joint session, perhaps it is a typo from where the speech was posted? I certainly don’t know.
…
Here is a quote from a blog (similar in spirit to the quotes Boston brings us):
We now know that Karl Rove disclosed Plame’s status to at least two reporters, contradicting two year old White House denials that Karl Rove had “no involvement” in the leak.
We know that White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer read a classified State Department memorandum which revealed information about Plame’s CIA status in a paragraph marked (S) for secret, a day before Karl Rove confirmed this information to the columnist Robert Novak.
We know that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, confirmed Plame’s status to at least one reporter.
We know that the CIA classified Valerie Plame’s identity as covert and she wasn’t, as Rove’s defenders say, just a desk jockey at Langley.
We know that President Bush promised to fire “those involved” in the leak and is now backing away from that promise.